Efforts to Defund or Ban Infant Male Circumcision Are Unfounded and Potentially Harmful, Experts Arg

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
reply to post by dplum517

 

Maybe you should have got your child pierced and a few tattoos too to go with the mutilated genitalia??

It may be legal...but its not right

If it aint broke dont fix it

If I lived in New Guinea ....maybe I would pierce and tattoo my kid.

That is the beauty of being a parent.

YOU are the guardian of your child and you get to tell him what to do and influence how he thinks. That is one of the main reasons people have kids.

I am not telling you to circumcise your kid am I? ...nope .... I don't care if you do or don't.

Originally posted by Skewed
As far as the child not having a choice.

What about the vaccinations that babies are pumped full of on a daily basis, do they get a choice on that? I think the complaints need to be streamlined, and base the decisions off of facts, not feelings.

Completely different.

Children are vaccinated because there is a need for it. You dont remove something from them!
There is NO need to remove parts of a baby/child unless there is a medical emergency that requires removal of said human body part.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


Ahh, and this is the problem.

We create tunnel vision on similar problems but yet separate them as if they are different. Everything is connected.

That is why we have so many problems in fixing things. Everything has to have its own solution.

I did not reference vaccinations to derail the thread, I merely wanted make a point that using the argument that babies do not have a choice in circumcision is not any different from them not having a choice in being vaccinated.

The medical proof on both topics is still in the hands of the jury, both sides are debated without any firm consensus one way or the other.

there is equal risk to both for std's. all of the risks are the same but honestly coming from a womans point of view I have had both an circ'd guy and uncirc'd guy and honestly the circ'd one just looks more appealing than the uncirc'd one.

Originally posted by MissCoyote
there is equal risk to both for std's. all of the risks are the same but honestly coming from a womans point of view I have had both an circ'd guy and uncirc'd guy and honestly the circ'd one just looks more appealing than the uncirc'd one.

Which is only your opinion, and with no medical reasoning (before sexually active really), personal opinion on how something looks should not be a reason to circumcise a child who can not make the choice for themself.

Circumcision is A "choice" and a choice should remain, if some people doesn't want it or doesn't like by all means do not get it, but leave those that believe in it alone to make their own choice.

I hate when certain groups want things their way and don't give a crap about the choices of others

They need to get a life.

You want yor skin I care less what you do with it, but let me have my choice.

Originally posted by marg6043
Circumcision is A "choice" and a choice should remain, if some people doesn't want it or doesn't like by all means do not get it, but leave those that believe in it alone to make their own choice.

I hate when certain groups want things their way and don't give a crap about the choices of others

They need to get a life.

You want yor skin I care less what you do with it, but let me have my choice.

Choice is all the people against circumcision have asked for, the childs choice. The person it is to happen to. The person who actually deserves the choice.

reply to post by StevenDye


If men had the chance to decide whether or not to get circ'd or not it would end up just like men getting a vasectomy. it would NEVER HAPPEN IT WILL TAKE MY MANHOOD. and to be honest my husband made that decision to have out son circ'd I just followed his wishs.

Pros

•Religious or cultural significance. Circumcision has traditional significance in certain religions, such as Judaism and Islam.
•Circumcision may let the infant resemble other male family members. Some families choose to circumcise their infant if the older male family members are circumcised and they don’t want their sons to feel “different.” However, the same can be true for a family whose members are uncircumcised.
•Circumcised infants are ten times less likely to contract urinary tract infections (UTIs), however, only about 1% or less of uncircumcised males will be affected by a UTI despite their increased risk.
•A study found circumcised males to have a reduced risk for contracting penile human papillomavirus (HPV). Female partners of circumcised males were also found to have a lower incidence of HPV.
Cons

•The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says there is no medical need for the procedure. Though some studies have shown circumcision to decrease the risk of certain infections, no evidence has been weighty enough for the AAP to change its recommendation.
•Like any surgical procedure, circumcision poses potential risks. Complications such as minor bleeding or infection can happen as a result of surgery, though both can be easily treated by your doctor. The incidence of these complications is uncommon, occurring in around 0.2% to 3% of cases, but it’s important to be aware of the risks.
•A circumcised penis isn’t more or less hygienic than an uncircumcised one. With normal cleaning and personal hygiene, the circumcised penis is no cleaner than the uncircumcised penis.

www.babble.com...

so with that note its strictly whether you want to or not. and up until age 18 parents are allowed to make a CHILDS descisions.

reply to post by StevenDye


Some people would like the choice to make a decision without some activist group chastising them about their decisions.

reply to post by StevenDye


My husband and my son are circumcised they have no regretted so they have their choice, a choice should stay.

Plain and simple.

As the father of 3 uncircumcised boys and being a circumscribed man, I have a pretty good insight into this. That's not taking into consideration the amount of research I've done into the subject.

I agree that this is not something the government should be involved with, but to say that an medically unnecessary procedure be done on a child under 18 without their consent is anything but wrong is beyond rationality and reason. If this procedure has merit, medically (which is disputed), then it would not prevent many adult males from having it performed.

We have, and should, the freedom to determine what happens to our bodies. This right, however, should not be removed from the individual and given to any authority figure (even parents) when it is not essential. No where have I seen anything to indicate that this procedure can NOT wait until adulthood before being done, therefore parents have no right or say in having this procedure done.

It is barbaric to me that parents have assumed this right, and increasingly the courts agree. To say that it is a parent's choice is beyond foolish, wrong, and out of line with liberty and property-rights.

I do not think it should be banned, but only for children under 18.

Peace
KJ

reply to post by KrazyJethro


Although, what happens when the kid turns 18 and decides to have it done. Afterwards, the kid says, mom/dad I wish you did this at birth so I would not remember the pain or have to deal with the healing process.

Originally posted by Skewed
reply to post by KrazyJethro

 

Although, what happens when the kid turns 18 and decides to have it done. Afterwards, the kid says, mom/dad I wish you did this at birth so I would not remember the pain or have to deal with the healing process.

edit on 5-10-2011 by Skewed because: (no reason given)

my 13 brother just got circ'd he wanted it for his birthday because he was getting picked on in gym class when he went to the bathroom I hate seeing young men cry over being bullyed over something so simple as a penis. I am staying with my own it should be an option to the parent not to the child. children do not have the right to vote why should they have to have the right to decide on a non invasive procedure as an infant. next there going to say women don't have the right to an epidural for labor. that will start a texas chansaw mass.

reply to post by MissCoyote

children do not have the right to vote why should they have to have the right to decide on a non invasive procedure as an infant.

But circumcision is an invasive procedure with permanent lifetime effect.

next there going to say women don't have the right to an epidural for labor. that will start a texas chansaw mass.

Bad analogy, because epidural affects only the woman herself, not anyone else, and is not permanent.

Despite all the factual, verifiable evidence on this thread that circumcision does in fact come with some very serious health concerns, people either missed it or ignore it.

You all call for personal choice but no one takes into consideration the lack of choice they are presenting their children with. What you are really calling for is your right to control your sons and daughters. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but let's please call it what it is.

Who benefits from continuing to allow Medicaid to pay for neonatal circumcision? The same doctors and obstetricians that are touting it's health benefits. If Medicaid doesn't pay many parents will choose to not have this dangerous and unnecessary procedure done. This is less money in the pockets of healthcare providers. Thus the slanted study based on little evidence.

Again, there are some very serious risks involved in this, again, UNNECESSARY procedure. I wish it was as simple as a parent's choice, but there is much more to be considered.

Here is yet more information regarding the risks and disadvantages of being circumcised. I really hope some of the "pro circumcision" people take a look at this and the information linked on the first page of the thread. Please review the information before arguing on either side.



www.circumcision.org...

Originally posted by patternfinder
the figures that you posted in your op are arbitrary.....

I don't see how they are 'arbitrary' unless you mean 'made up.'

.... multiple studies conducted within the last five years showing that in heterosexuals,

- circumcision reduced HIV infection risk by 60 percent,
- genital herpes by 30 percent and
- cancer-causing human papillomavirus (HPV) by 35 percent in men.

- Females benefit from a 40 percent or greater reduced risk of bacterial vaginosis or parasitic trichomonas spread during sex, as well as HPV infection, which causes cervical cancer....

It seems like a lot of effort to spend millions in research and tons of time to determine a statistic just for the sake of being a sadistic perv.

I think many, if not most, people who subscribe to the practice, do it because they believe they are doing the right thing.

As far as 'mutilation is concerned and the oft-cited notion that somehow sex is less pleasurable, you might want to ask men who have had sex before and after circumcision before making the claim. I've known a few, and none of them say they experienced any diminished sense of enjoyment or sensation.... but then, I have the distinct feeling your objections are based on something outside the realm of statistics.

I am not advocating anything here... although I seem to have stirred up the hornet's nest. I will say that the objections seem to be somewhat 'notional' and lack the weight of the majority of the medical community behind them. those disagreeing may not be wrong, but there has to be a better way to send that message without evoking the idea of parents being butchers and sadists over a tradition.

I do agree though, the ritualistic approach to the practice is disquieting and something I cannot relate to.

Preventative mastectomies sure would decrease the incidence rate of breast cancer.



......

Wow, I didn't even realize it was an issue. After reading the reasonable anti-circumcision posts, I am starting to question the practice. When I think about it, I have to wonder, why is it that, here in America, a circumcised penis is a normal penis as opposed to an uncircumcised one? Why is a natural penis labeled uncircumcised? Also, after watching the youtube videos one poster shared, I don't know if I could do that to my son if I'm ever blessed with one.

On the other hand, I am circumcised. Thankfully, I do recognize mine as normal. I have never had any problems with it. I don't remember any pain or trauma from the procedure, and it didn't get infected. I don't feel like I was abused. I don't lack sexual sensitivity in my member. In fact, I'm embarrassed to say I'm a bit over sensitive. Further, with uncircumcised penises being so uncommon, if I had one, it may have limited my ability to receive sexual pleasure. Also and most importantly, I don't feel like I'm incomplete or less of a man.

This all being said, I can't agree with an outright ban on the procedure. I do think parents should be able choose whether or not they want to have it done for what ever reason. However, I do think it should not be funded if it is proven to have no medical benefits.

Originally posted by Skewed

Although, what happens when the kid turns 18 and decides to have it done. Afterwards, the kid says, mom/dad I wish you did this at birth so I would not remember the pain or have to deal with the healing process.

edit on 5-10-2011 by Skewed because: (no reason given)

Nothing. Is this a serious question?

If the child decides to have it done, then he deals with the repercussions (which are relatively small). The fact is that the child still had the choice himself rather than it being stripped away. Using your example is a terribly poor way to refute my point.