Circumcision of baby boys: for or against?

thepossiblepolice wrote:Do you feel the same way about female circumcision? Recently the AAP stated that they would allow female circumcision in order to be more culturally sensitive...The outcry was so loud that they reversed that standing.

Culturally sensitive my ass. Genders are different and people gotta just cope.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

thepossiblepolice wrote:Do you feel the same way about female circumcision? Recently the AAP stated that they would allow female circumcision in order to be more culturally sensitive...The outcry was so loud that they reversed that standing.

Culturally sensitive my ass. Genders are different and people gotta just cope.

Then I'm glad to be a girl

thepossiblepolice wrote:

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

Culturally sensitive my ass. Genders are different and people gotta just cope.

Then I'm glad to be a girl

Given the choice between an infancy surgery I won't remember or painful childbirths, I'd take the former. I'm glad to a dude.

thepossiblepolice wrote:

I actually know women who are Muslim and circumcised and when I did more research about it I found out that it's practiced WAY more than I thought it was...

My friend who is NOT cut but whose friends are, actually says she wishes she were cut because she's more "prone to emotion" and all of her friends who are cut have better self control...Nice, right?...

You did explain to her that having your feet in the air, breathlessly screaming obscenities is a good thing didn't you? :biggrin:

thepossiblepolice wrote: ... my cousin's circ was botched and he had to have several surgeries to try to repair it, and for what? He's not Jewish, there are no consistently proven medical benefits, and he didn't have a birth defect that required it...

Even that should not be a quick reason for circumcision. Many boys have their prepuce attached to the glans. I think that is what I had because I am half circumcised. Fortunately the doc took only what was necessary to detach the skin because our family was not inclined to circumcise. (still got enuf to slide under my hand) But I've read that the skin detaches on its own by puberty in many of those boys.

Shale wrote:

thepossiblepolice wrote:

I actually know women who are Muslim and circumcised and when I did more research about it I found out that it's practiced WAY more than I thought it was...

My friend who is NOT cut but whose friends are, actually says she wishes she were cut because she's more "prone to emotion" and all of her friends who are cut have better self control...Nice, right?...

You did explain to her that having your feet in the air, breathlessly screaming obscenities is a good thing didn't you? :biggrin:

thepossiblepolice wrote: ... my cousin's circ was botched and he had to have several surgeries to try to repair it, and for what? He's not Jewish, there are no consistently proven medical benefits, and he didn't have a birth defect that required it...

Even that should not be a quick reason for circumcision. Many boys have their prepuce attached to the glans. I think that is what I had because I am half circumcised. Fortunately the doc took only what was necessary to detach the skin because our family was not inclined to circumcise. (still got enuf to slide under my hand) But I've read that the skin detaches on its own by puberty in many of those boys.

Oh I agree, but I have a friend whose son is the same age as my twins, and he had hypospadias (sp?) or something and they were able to use his foreskin to reconstruct his urethra or something like that. I think now it's considered to be normal if it doesn't retract until puberty and only if it causes pain is it considered to be a problem. I'm not a penis expert but I do have 4 intact sons so I've done some research

Makes me wonder what I should if I have a baby boy.
Seriously I and my boyfriend haven't even discussed THAT.

CatEyes10736 wrote:Makes me wonder what I should if I have a baby boy.
Seriously I and my boyfriend haven't even discussed THAT.

Before I decided I did a TON of research and watched a video of one being performed so I could decide with "first hand" knowledge of what actually happens during the procedure.

It's not an easy choice to make, unless you already just KNOW already because you already have strong feelings about it. After my research my feelings became strong about it, but not everyone is the same. Good luck! Maybe you'll have a girl and it wont even matter

One of the good things is that now people have more information. There was a time when it was so routine it was almost expected. Parents don't have that kind of pressure on them to have it done. I still feel it should be left up to him when he gets older. Without a valid medical reason it's a choice he should be able to make for himself.

CeCe wrote:One of the good things is that now people have more information. There was a time when it was so routine it was almost expected. Parents don't have that kind of pressure on them to have it done. I still feel it should be left up to him when he gets older. Without a valid medical reason it's a choice he should be able to make for himself.

Also, when you're older, they use anesthesia. They usually don't on newborns.

^^^^Newborns won't remember the procedure. Anesthesia won't numb the memories and pain of doing it as an adult.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:^^^^Newborns won't remember the procedure. Anesthesia won't numb the memories and pain of doing it as an adult.

Newborns won't remember the pain of being dropped on their head as an infant either. That doesn't mean we should take every precaution to prevent that from happening. An adult can actually be put under for a circumcision (that he most likely choose to do himself and if fully mentally prepaired for when going into the operation). A newborn who has no idea what is going on (or why) suddenly having the most painful experience ever on their private parts is not so prepaired. No wonder that memory is surpressed. Except that it isn't fully surpress because most infant boys who are circumcised do have subtle lingering effects from the procedure (especially when done without anesthesia) like a lower threshold for pain in the first few years of life.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:^^^^Newborns won't remember the procedure. Anesthesia won't numb the memories and pain of doing it as an adult.

My response to the people who use the "babies won't remember the pain of circumcision, but an adult will" defense is that perhaps this procedure just shouldn't be performed at all. Not on infants, not on adults. What's the point? How is foreskin in any way a hindrance to the point where it needs to be removed? Okay, sure, you may have some boys/men whose skin for whatever reason is tight down there or may become infected, but there are plenty of alternatives to remedy those fleeting situations than callously removing something that nature intended all males to have.

^^^^^If you wanna go with nature, there's plenty people do to violate "nature."

If you don't like the procedure, don't have it done to your kid. It's basically a case of one side trying to force it's views on another. And their justification for it seems to be rooted in merely personal feelings.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:^^^^^If you wanna go with nature, there's plenty people do to violate "nature."

If you don't like the procedure, don't have it done to your kid. It's basically a case of one side trying to force it's views on another. And their justification for it seems to be rooted in merely personal feelings.

In my opinion, when we are talking about surgery on a child, it should be the surgery that has to be justified, not the absence of it.

thepossiblepolice wrote:

Forgiveness_Man wrote:^^^^^If you wanna go with nature, there's plenty people do to violate "nature."

If you don't like the procedure, don't have it done to your kid. It's basically a case of one side trying to force it's views on another. And their justification for it seems to be rooted in merely personal feelings.

In my opinion, when we are talking about surgery on a child, it should be the surgery that has to be justified, not the absence of it.

Religious reasons or hygiene reasons are justification enough for me to let parents be. It's as common a procedure as you can get and I honestly feel this us one time people need to back off and let parents make their own decisions.

Forgiveness Man wrote:
Religious reasons or hygiene reasons are justification enough for me to let parents be. It's as common a procedure as you can get and I honestly feel this us one time people need to back off and let parents make their own decisions.

You wouldn't be able to justify removing your child's earlobes in the name of "religion" so how can that be used as a justification for removing a child's foreskin? "Hygiene" doesn't justify female circumcision (or even male circumcision according to most pediatricians). When it comes to the safety and rights of children, these are non-justifications as far as I'm concerned. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Especially if its not YOURS! Just because something is (or was) popular doesn't mean that its right. And I honestly feel that his people need to back off and let children make their own decisions about their body when they get older.

I think it was somewhere in this thread we got into comparing circumcising boys with piercing babies' ears...and I still can't get the comparison to these two things. 'oh it's a cultural thing in both cases so they're similar', well that may be, but if you pierce a baby's ears, odds are you are going to be showing off whatever earrings they get, to the people you show the baby off to, but how many people do parents intend to show off their son's circumcision to?

^^^^I can only imagine the discussions that could ensue from this.

I have an idea. Let's not mutilate babies... I don't remember consenting to having my foreskin removed. And I wish it never was.

Supernova wrote:I think it was somewhere in this thread we got into comparing circumcising boys with piercing babies' ears...and I still can't get the comparison to these two things. 'oh it's a cultural thing in both cases so they're similar', well that may be, but if you pierce a baby's ears, odds are you are going to be showing off whatever earrings they get, to the people you show the baby off to, but how many people do parents intend to show off their son's circumcision to?

I think the comparrison has more to do with the fact that both of them are unnecessary, painful and legal things that parents choose to do to their children (mostly for vanity reasons). And although most parents (unless they are Jewish) aren't going to be showing off their sons penis to family and friends, they will see it themselves when they are changing him and if it's not the way daddy's is, they will be constantly reminded of that. So the circumcision deal has more to do with satisfying the parents own ego than "showing off" to other people. It's a differenty type of vanity, but they are both usually done for vein reasons that have nothing to do with the child's best interests.

^^^^That's speculative. Either way, it's the parents' right I say. It's not abusive and I think people honestly need to mind their own business about it. I think it's just another way for people to try and force their views on another family.

Forgiveness Man wrote:^^^^That's speculative. Either way, it's the parents' right I say. It's not abusive and I think people honestly need to mind their own business about it. I think it's just another way for people to try and force their views on another family.

Speculation is irrelevant. The self given motivations or acknowledged ignorance of most of the people who are for the procedure speaks for itself. For some people spanking isn't abuse, to others it is. You may not see circumcision as "abuse" but I do (and so do some who've been subjected to it). Regardless, I think that routine neonatal CIRCUMCISION is another way for people to force their views on other people (literally). If it wasn't for that, this wouldn't even be a discussion. Guys who wanted to be circumcised could simply go get circumcised and guys who didn't want to be wouldn't be. It wouldn't be anybody's business but their own!

Rockbird wrote:I don't remember consenting to having my foreskin removed. And I wish it never was.

Case in point!

^^^^Nice point about spanking. That's a great comparison! Parents have a right to spank their children when they get out of line. We don't need busybodies telling parents they can't spank their kids when they get out of line. People gotta start seeing what real abuse is and stop seeing abuse where it isn't, such as spanking and circumcision. It'll get to the point where real abuse will not be believed because people cry wolf.

I say it is a parent's business. It's their right to do it. The idea of circumcision being abusive is something you personally feel is true. In that case, don't do it to your son. But don't force your views on other people. Parents "forcing views" and busybody strangers forcing views are are different topics. So at the end of the day, I say leave it up to the parents. That's what it's really down to. If you don't like it, don't do it to your kid. Just butt out of other people's lives.

My concern is the child. I don't really care about the parents. I feel like you just should leave well-enough alone. It's skin. And not even extra skin. Just skin.

^^^^Just skin? Then no need to get upset about other people's decisions.