View Full Version : Will/Did you choose circumcision?
Lovemyfam
15-03-2012, 16:36
The tides will change as more and more boys get infections under their foreskins. These things always swing in fits and round a bouts.
If parents would stop fiddling with thier sons bits and trying to force retraction I bet there would be less problems if a dr tried to force my sons doeskin back I would try to charge him with molestation or something it has to stop
share a book
15-03-2012, 17:00
Are there stats to show how many were circumcised once a medical problem arose that made it necessary compared to those that are unnecessary?
Kimberleygal1
15-03-2012, 17:17
one thing not mentioned is sure drs push it, and governments wont stop it because foreskin is a HUGE money maker, one little foreskin can make so many people money (remember that it is used in anti aging facial creams) so they sell the cream and governments get taxes from the sales.
I think its great that the disease entrapping foreskin can be of good use, and not only in a wrinkle cream. They also use it for skin grafts for burns victims, the process it is put through means one foreskin multiplies and is apparently better than regular skin grafts.
I think its great that the disease entrapping foreskin can be of good use, and not only in a wrinkle cream. They also use it for skin grafts for burns victims, the process it is put through means one foreskin multiplies and is apparently better than regular skin grafts.
Flawless argument. Great reason for me to circumcise DS, so he can help someone who has suffered serious burns or has crows feet. While I'm at it, I think I'll donate one of his kidneys. He can live with one and hey, it'll help someone who needs one.
I normally avoid circ threads like the plague and comments like yours are the reason why.
Kimberleygal1
15-03-2012, 17:25
some do still cut and the thought of my sons penis rotting off is gross, I know it prob doesn't rot but still that is animal abuse if people do it to puppies tails why then is it ok for a human beings
It's not a penis, it's skin!
But no it doesn't rot and it's not like you look at it, when you take the bandage off after 7 days it does not look horrid, it is clean and healed nicely, that's how quick the healing time is.
Kimberleygal1
15-03-2012, 17:31
Flawless argument. Great reason for me to circumcise DS, so he can help someone who has suffered serious burns or has crows feet. While I'm at it, I think I'll donate one of his kidneys. He can live with one and hey, it'll help someone who needs one.
I normally avoid circ threads like the plague and comments like yours are the reason why.
I was pointing out a fact, not to suggest its a reason to do it. Oh dear lord!
The RACP (or any other medical board in the world) does not recommend circumcision in infants, do you think every medical board in the world is misguided! LOL
I think the RACP are educated people, experts I would say, yet they do not recommend it :)
That is your opinion, however, not the opinion of the medical experts in Australia :)
Aaah. The appeal to authority. I am confident enough in myself to be able to make my own decisions. Just like I don't rely in the IPCC to tell me about global warming... I mean... climate change.
But since it looks like you give the authority figures such respect, I'm guessing that you should also then agree with these RACP quotes. After all, they are the 'experts' right?
However it is reasonable for parents to weigh the benefits and risks of circumcision and to make the decision whether or not to circumcise their sons.
Parental choice should be respected.
Circumcision of males is legal in Australia
This suggests that parents are in principle better placed than doctors to weigh up the risks and benefits of circumcision for male infants. It is ethically appropriate for the decision about infant male circumcision to be left in parents’ hands, with the proviso that the decision may be overridden in individual cases where circumcision poses greater than
average physical risks to the child (for example, because of concurrent morbidities). To deny parents the option to choose circumcision for their male infant would be to judge that it is clearly detrimental to a child’s overall well being and interests in all circumstances.
They were direct quote from the RACP statement. It can be found here:
http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=65118B16-F145-8B74-236C86100E4E3E8E
I personally think it's cruel. Strapping a baby down? Not my idea of fun.
You are entitled to your opinion. But please don't mislead people with what takes place. My boys were NOT strapped down. It is not indended to be fun. These two comments paint a false picture of reality.
Actually, there are a lot of nerve endings in the foreskin and if the head of a penis is getting knocked around in pants all day it is going to toughen up thus less sensitivity.
On a lighter side. Anyone got any ideas to 'knock' mine around some more. I've been circumcised now for 30 years and would love a bit of a sensitivity reduction.:D That thing is bloody sensitive enough already!
And on my quick read through of the previous 15 pages of standard anti-circ comments, I noted that the 'circumstitions' website is still being linked to.:laughing:
For those interested in how good that website is, you may want to read this:
http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?437939-Foreskin-functions
You will need to read this link in conjunction.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Functions.html
Yours in parental freedom in raising kids!
Alexander Beetle
15-03-2012, 17:33
It's not a penis, it's skin!
But no it doesn't rot and it's not like you look at it, when you take the bandage off after 7 days it does not look horrid, it is clean and healed nicely, that's how quick the healing time is.
It's not skin. It's a highly sensitive part of the male organ, with nerve endings akin to the clitoris. Please, don't change medical facts to suit your agenda.
share a book
15-03-2012, 17:33
It's not a penis, it's skin!
But no it doesn't rot and it's not like you look at it, when you take the bandage off after 7 days it does not look horrid, it is clean and healed nicely, that's how quick the healing time is.
It takes a full week? I was thinking a day at most the way people put it, but a full week!?
Alexander Beetle
15-03-2012, 17:34
Oooh Father is here!
Bubs'n'Roses
15-03-2012, 17:35
I've never been in one of these threads, I've heard they get nasty. I've never had to, I've only got girls. But now we're getting a boy. I hadn't really given any thought to doing anything to him. I'd read this whole thread to get all the information though, as I know NOTHING about it.
Kimberleygal1
15-03-2012, 17:40
It takes a full week? I was thinking a day at most the way people put it, but a full week!?
Both my boys were bandaged for 7 days, by the look of things once removing the bandage it probably didn't take that long to heal as it was very clean but couldn't tell with the bandage on obviously but I have heard that some drs don't leave the bandage on for that long, perhaps others have had a different experience in regard to healing time.
Kimberleygal1
15-03-2012, 17:42
Aaah. The appeal to authority. I am confident enough in myself to be able to make my own decisions. Just like I don't rely in the IPCC to tell me about global warming... I mean... climate change.
But since it looks like you give the authority figures such respect, I'm guessing that you should also then agree with these RACP quotes. After all, they are the 'experts' right?
They were direct quote from the RACP statement. It can be found here:
http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=65118B16-F145-8B74-236C86100E4E3E8E
You are entitled to your opinion. But please don't mislead people with what takes place. My boys were NOT strapped down. It is not indended to be fun. These two comments paint a false picture of reality.
On a lighter side. Anyone got any ideas to 'knock' mine around some more. I've been circumcised now for 30 years and would love a bit of a sensitivity reduction.:D That thing is bloody sensitive enough already!
And on my quick read through of the previous 15 pages of standard anti-circ comments, I noted that the 'circumstitions' website is still being linked to.:laughing:
For those interested in how good that website is, you may want to read this:
http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?437939-Foreskin-functions
You will need to read this link in conjunction.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Functions.html
Yours in parental freedom in raising kids!
Welcome father :wave:
Aaah. The appeal to authority. I am confident enough in myself to be able to make my own decisions. Just like I don't rely in the IPCC to tell me about global warming... I mean... climate change.
But since it looks like you give the authority figures such respect, I'm guessing that you should also then agree with these RACP quotes. After all, they are the 'experts' right?
They were direct quote from the RACP statement. It can be found here:
http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=65118B16-F145-8B74-236C86100E4E3E8E
You are entitled to your opinion. But please don't mislead people with what takes place. My boys were NOT strapped down. It is not indended to be fun. These two comments paint a false picture of reality.
On a lighter side. Anyone got any ideas to 'knock' mine around some more. I've been circumcised now for 30 years and would love a bit of a sensitivity reduction.:D That thing is bloody sensitive enough already!
And on my quick read through of the previous 15 pages of standard anti-circ comments, I noted that the 'circumstitions' website is still being linked to.:laughing:
For those interested in how good that website is, you may want to read this:
http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?437939-Foreskin-functions
You will need to read this link in conjunction.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Functions.html
Yours in parental freedom in raising kids!
Here here! Cheers to parental freedom!
Welcome father :wave:
Hello. Good to see you haven't been scared off by the group attack against your opinion.
Just read the article in the Australian from this week.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/circumcision-may-cut-risk-of-prostate-cancer/story-e6frg8y6-1226297564266
Looks like the RACP may need to update their statement with this new addition.
Lovemyfam
15-03-2012, 17:51
Hello. Good to see you haven't been scared off by the group attack against your opinion.
Just read the article in the Australian from this week.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/circumcision-may-cut-risk-of-prostate-cancer/story-e6frg8y6-1226297564266
Looks like the RACP may need to update their statement with this new addition.
Cool maybe in 5 years it will reduce lung cancer too :) no seriously I have trouble believing all this. Hey father would love your input on my female circ thread I am seriously interested in pro circ opinions
share a book
15-03-2012, 17:53
Does parental freedom extend to body piercings, female circumcisions, tattoos and other such issues? They are all permanent modifications for cosmetic or cultural reasons, too. Or what about in areas where 12 year old boys are burnt with a stick to prove they are men, and girls as young as 12 (from first period) are old enough for s3x? What about the rights of children, or do your expectations of parental freedom only extend to the penis of infant boys?
Does parental freedom extend to body piercings, female circumcisions, tattoos and other such issues? They are all permanent modifications for cosmetic or cultural reasons, too. Or what about in areas where 12 year old boys are burnt with a stick to prove they are men, and girls as young as 12 (from first period) are old enough for s3x? What about the rights of children, or do your expectations of parental freedom only extend to the penis of infant boys?
Whoah. Settle down there.
My expectations of parental freedom are bound by the laws of Australia. I do not condone doing anything illegal.
Does parental freedom extend to body piercings, female circumcisions, tattoos and other such issues? They are all permanent modifications for cosmetic or cultural reasons, too. Or what about in areas where 12 year old boys are burnt with a stick to prove they are men, and girls as young as 12 (from first period) are old enough for s3x? What about the rights of children, or do your expectations of parental freedom only extend to the penis of infant boys?
No not at all to me they extend to procedures ive already posted about.
Lovemyfam
15-03-2012, 17:59
I have breast cancer running wild in my family do you think it would be ok I have all my daughters breast removed as babies just in case? This may sound silly bits it's the same concept maybe those with ovarian cancer in thier families should remove the daughters ovaries
Cool maybe in 5 years it will reduce lung cancer too :) no seriously I have trouble believing all this. Hey father would love your input on my female circ thread I am seriously interested in pro circ opinions
Not really interested in discussing an illegal activity thankyou. I'm not sure what your opinion is on the subject, nor do I really care. Hope your thread is achieving your aims.
share a book
15-03-2012, 18:00
Whoah. Settle down there.
My expectations of parental freedom are bound by the laws of Australia. I do not condone doing anything illegal.
The burning of hands happens in Indigenous Australian communities, and is cultural but it's changing because children are being respected more now.
Lovemyfam
15-03-2012, 18:01
Whoah. Settle down there.
My expectations of parental freedom are bound by the laws of Australia. I do not condone doing anything illegal.
That is what people think it should be made unlawful to Circ boys so if the laws passed you would not find other ways to get it done?
I have breast cancer running wild in my family do you think it would be ok I have all my daughters breast removed as babies just in case?
Are you considering it? If not, then it seems your mind is made up and input from me would be of no worth.
The burning of hands happens in Indigenous Australian communities, and is cultural but it's changing because children are being respected more now.
Is it legal?
Lovemyfam
15-03-2012, 18:03
Not really interested in discussing an illegal activity thankyou. I'm not sure what your opinion is on the subject, nor do I really care. Hope your thread is achieving your aims.
I am not discussing doing it just pointing out these "benefits" for doing boys are there for the girls too but maybe it makes too much sense and there is no argument who knows thanks anyway
share a book
15-03-2012, 18:07
Is it legal?
They are allowed to continue because it's cultural, but the s3x with little girls is now illegal. However, people are not being charged because it's still accepted so people turn a blind eye.
Piercing is legal, often done for cultural reasons but sometimes purely cosmetic.
Lovemyfam
15-03-2012, 18:08
They are allowed to continue because it's cultural, but the s3x with little girls is now illegal. However, people are not being charged because it's still accepted so people turn a blind eye.
Piercing is legal, often done for cultural reasons but sometimes purely cosmetic.
Wow I didnt know this :(
share a book
15-03-2012, 18:15
Wow I didnt know this :(
A friend of mine is now a councillor in one of these places and is hoping to change views, educate men on how wrong it is, educate young girls on their rights and the actions they can take, but it is basically changing the mentality of entire communities who have always accepted that once a period first occurs, she is a woman and to become a woman, a man must take her virginity. It is often an older member of the community who does this.
Same with boys, the aim is to give boys the ability to say no, which is hard because boys *want* to become men.
They are allowed to continue because it's cultural, but the s3x with little girls is now illegal. However, people are not being charged because it's still accepted so people turn a blind eye.
I would say that this is racist. People should not be treated differently because of their race. They should be afforded the same protections and rights as all other Australians.
share a book
15-03-2012, 18:17
I would say that this is racist. People should not be treated differently because of their race. They should be afforded the same protections and rights as all other Australians.
Finally something we agree on! All children should be given the same rights to protection.
Finally something we agree on! All children should be given the same rights to protection.
Please don't verbal me.
headoverfeet
15-03-2012, 18:30
I would say that this is racist. People should not be treated differently because of their race. They should be afforded the same protections and rights as all other Australians.
It's a shame baby boys aren't afforded the same right to be left intact as baby girls are.
Huni&Coco
15-03-2012, 18:36
Wow i am actually surprised at how many voted no.
its not in my hubbies cultural beliefs. :-)
share a book
15-03-2012, 18:47
Please don't verbal me.
So kids in these communities should be afforded the same rights as other Australians, but male infants should not be afforded the same rights as female infants? Do you see your children as possessions only?
No way, no how. As long as the foreskin is healthy, there is no reason to remove it - any more than there is reason to remove a healthy clitoral hood.
It's a shame baby boys aren't afforded the same right to be left intact as baby girls are.
It's like a bloody broken record around here.:banghead2:
Maybe you should go and hang out in lovemyfam's thread.
headoverfeet
15-03-2012, 19:00
It's like a bloody broken record around here.:banghead2:
Maybe you should go and hang out in lovemyfam's thread.
I kind of like it in here :hoponbed:
Father, despite the fact I am against RIC, I do have friends IRL who have done it, so I am aware of the procedure :)
If it's such a harmless procedure, why would Terry Russell not recommend parents being in the room with their baby?
Alexander Beetle
15-03-2012, 19:05
I kind of like it in here :hoponbed:
This is the Discuss It section, so you can hang out in here all you like Thermy. I'll snuggle up on your pillow.
So kids in these communities should be afforded the same rights as other Australians, but male infants should not be afforded the same rights as female infants? Do you see your children as possessions only?
Male infants do have the same rights as female infants. Females don't have penis's, so there are obviously some medical differences. It's like saying I should have the right to give birth. It's a stupid argument.
Despite your (and others) desires to make female genital mutilation, which is what the WHO call it, look like it is comparable to circumcision, it is of no comparison. I suggest that you do some research on the matter rather than just copy what everyone says.
It is illegal.
The WHO frowns upon it.
On the other hand, the WHO is quite supportive of male circumcision, especially in Africa. There is also a vast array of scientific evidence of medical benefits of circumcision.
While you are doing your research, can you please forward any scientific research showing any medical benefits which FGM provides, if you happen to stumble across any.
Good luck with your research.
Father, despite the fact I am against RIC, I do have friends IRL who have done it, so I am aware of the procedure :)
If it's such a harmless procedure, why would Terry Russell not recommend parents being in the room with their baby?
I don't know. Hygiene? Distractions? Why don't you ask him? I went in for my second boy's. Each doctor probably has their own preferences.
My wife had eye surgery today, and I didn't go in. What's your point?
maplefern
15-03-2012, 19:14
Aaah. The appeal to authority. I am confident enough in myself to be able to make my own decisions. Just like I don't rely in the IPCC to tell me about global warming... I mean... climate change.
But since it looks like you give the authority figures such respect, I'm guessing that you should also then agree with these RACP quotes. After all, they are the 'experts' right?
They were direct quote from the RACP statement. It can be found here:
http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=65118B16-F145-8B74-236C86100E4E3E8E
You are entitled to your opinion. But please don't mislead people with what takes place. My boys were NOT strapped down. It is not indended to be fun. These two comments paint a false picture of reality.
On a lighter side. Anyone got any ideas to 'knock' mine around some more. I've been circumcised now for 30 years and would love a bit of a sensitivity reduction.:D That thing is bloody sensitive enough already!
And on my quick read through of the previous 15 pages of standard anti-circ comments, I noted that the 'circumstitions' website is still being linked to.:laughing:
For those interested in how good that website is, you may want to read this:
http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?437939-Foreskin-functions
You will need to read this link in conjunction.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Functions.html
Yours in parental freedom in raising kids!
Thank you for all your links and useful information (and the entertaining comments) :laughing:
My husband is circumcised too and he said that he has a lot of sensitivity as well.
I think that if we have a son we will get him circ and not because of any vanity etc.
Bodily integrity is a human right. Imposing cosmetic surgery on non-consenting infants is not. Foreskins are awesome.
Tens of thousands of nerve endings.
Those nerve endings include a whole lot of sensitive stretch receptors - as the foreskin moves, it reports a whole lot of positional detail. That's a whole extra kind of sensation.
Frictionless gliding mechanism. The foreskin isn't just a "piece of skin", it's a toroidal linear bearing, providing completely frictionless movement, far superior to any amount of lubrication.
The frenulum is known by some as the 'male clitoris', and is exquisitely sensitive. Even if it's preserved (it usually isn't), one of the things it's most sensitive to is stretching as the foreskin retracts. No foreskin, no stretching, you've just lost a vast amount of sexual pleasure.
The foreskin protects and moisturises the surface of the glans (which is an internal organ, and does not have skin), keeping it sensitive and supple. Men undergoing foreskin restoration report that the difference in sensation is akin to the difference between wearing a condom and going bareback.
There are no good reasons to circumcise a healthy male penis.
Hygiene is not an issue. Five seconds in the shower, just pull back, wash, release, done. Washing your ears is harder work than that, but you don't go cutting those off.
I daresay that there are lots of guys in the world that find intact female genitalia 'weird', too - but if someone suggested you should cut up your daughter to suit them, you'd punch them in the face.
In some places, the majority of girls are circumcised, too. If you went to live there, would you have your daughter circumcised so she would be "normal"?
Even if you wanted to, there's no good reason to do it early.
It's his body, it ought to be his competent adult choice. You wouldn't give him a tattoo - or even let him get one himself - until he was an adult, so why this?
Done as an adult (assuming he wanted to), there's vastly more margin for error - a botched adult circumcision is not nearly as likely nor as pervasive. Plus he could actually choose exactly how he wanted it done.
In infancy, the foreskin is fused to the glans, like your nails are fused to the nail bed - and needs to be forcibly stripped free. Why deliberately choose the extra-traumatic option?
Infants cannot be given sufficient pain relief, either during the operation or during the healing process. There's research to indicate that the trauma has permanent effects on neural development, including permanently lowering their pain tolerance. Why would you do that to your own child?
A nappy environment is a terrible place for a wound to heal.
And that's not even covering stuff that can go wrong. Google for 'botched circumcision' , along with 'necrotizing fasciitis'.
In short: there's lots of inherent downsides, lots of risks, no benefits, and no all-fired hurry to do it as a child.
So, I just leave it alone. My male baby does not need bits cut off him. Any more than my female baby.
share a book
15-03-2012, 19:19
The WHO does not support it in all areas of the world.
We do not have the problems that Africa has. If we did, it would change things.
Female circumcision (as in the removal of a tiny bit of skin) is said to prevent cancer, be cleaner, and give some protection against STDs. I fail to see a difference? If you are talking about removing enough to greatly reduce any s3xual pleasure, that is a different matter and not what I am referring to.
I don't know. Hygiene? Distractions? Why don't you ask him? I went in for my second boy's. Each doctor probably has their own preferences.
My wife had eye surgery today, and I didn't go in. What's your point?
Your wife is a big girl, not a newborn baby!
Lovemyfam
15-03-2012, 19:32
So kids in these communities should be afforded the same rights as other Australians, but male infants should not be afforded the same rights as female infants? Do you see your children as possessions only?
Check mate lol
Lovemyfam
15-03-2012, 19:36
Male infants do have the same rights as female infants. Females don't have penis's, so there are obviously some medical differences. It's like saying I should have the right to give birth. It's a stupid argument.
Despite your (and others) desires to make female genital mutilation, which is what the WHO call it, look like it is comparable to circumcision, it is of no comparison. I suggest that you do some research on the matter rather than just copy what everyone says.
It is illegal.
The WHO frowns upon it.
On the other hand, the WHO is quite supportive of male circumcision, especially in Africa. There is also a vast array of scientific evidence of medical benefits of circumcision.
While you are doing your research, can you please forward any scientific research showing any medical benefits which FGM provides, if you happen to stumble across any.
Good luck with your research.
The WHO saw nothing wrong with female circ some years back
I posted research in the other thread that shows the same "benefits" of female circ females don't have doeskin but they have clitoral hoods of you read the other thread you will see the "benefits" or having this removed like decrease in aids by I think it was 50 percent it olson shows the trouble women can have caused by having an intact clitoral hood
By the way, to the best of my knowledge, it ain't babies that are off having sex and spreading AIDS. So chopping bits off them is a wee bit silly, I think, when you could just teach them proper safe sex techniques as they are growing up, their little penises intact.
Wow, was going to state my opinion on the matter but think I'll sit out of this one. I find it horrible for being a "supportive and friendly" forum, this is how people are getting treated for stating their opinion!
Come on people everyone is different and it Dosnt mean anyone's views are right or wrong.
And as for it being seen as 'pushing your beliefs on your child' isn't everything you do as a parent... For instance if you get them baptised or teach them to do something the way you do it or call something what you call it?!?!?
So I guess we should all just not do/ say anything around our children in case we are 'pushing our beliefs' on them?
Getting a child baptised is hardly akin to removing healthy, functioning and useful parts of their body. Your child can choose not to be Christian. He can't choose to grow back his foreskin - well, not without considerable pain and financial outlay.
Your wife is a big girl, not a newborn baby!
I didn't go in when my 2 year old had his tonsils out. What's your point?
Foreskins are awesome.
:laughing:
You didn't happen to be a co-author for the website in this thread did you?
http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?437939-Foreskin-functions
share a book
15-03-2012, 19:53
Wow, was going to state my opinion on the matter but think I'll sit out of this one. I find it horrible for being a "supportive and friendly" forum, this is how people are getting treated for stating their opinion!
Come on people everyone is different and it Dosnt mean anyone's views are right or wrong.
And as for it being seen as 'pushing your beliefs on your child' isn't everything you do as a parent... For instance if you get them baptised or teach them to do something the way you do it or call something what you call it?!?!?
So I guess we should all just not do/ say anything around our children in case we are 'pushing our beliefs' on them?
Baptising my baby has not left her permanently modified.
Though, reading the site now, I do agree with a heck of a lot of it. I'd have written it better, of course ;)
Maybe by baptising your child they are not permanently "physically" modified, but isn't that pushing ur beliefs on them all the same?!?!
They are still 'modified' in the fact that they are now baptised which is a Christian thing....
I just used that as an example as many people were saying they are against circ as its pushing the parents beliefs on their child. Nothing against people who baptise or circ, each to their own for their own reasons :)
Forskin is not needed. It is a piece of skin that can easily be removed without "harming" or disfiguring your child. With the removal of it, it is more hygenic and better for the child as they do not have to keep cleaning it. Some people have commented about removing it as against this or that because the child is born with it well in that opinion isnt that the same about cutting a childs hair. As truthfully it probably causes about the same amount of pain since they are so young not to remember it. And it is also better to have it removed then as the younger a person is the better there amune rate is which would mean there would be little or no cause for infection or whatnot. Also some people have said it is against this and that but if it is so wrong and bad then how come many doctors world wide perform this in children. If it was so wrong the law would of stepped in a long while ago but has not.
Sent from my GT-I9100T using BubHub
Lovemyfam
15-03-2012, 20:40
Forskin is not needed. It is a piece of skin that can easily be removed without "harming" or disfiguring your child. With the removal of it, it is more hygenic and better for the child as they do not have to keep cleaning it. Some people have commented about removing it as against this or that because the child is born with it well in that opinion isnt that the same about cutting a childs hair. As truthfully it probably causes about the same amount of pain since they are so young not to remember it. And it is also better to have it removed then as the younger a person is the better there amune rate is which would mean there would be little or no cause for infection or whatnot. Also some people have said it is against this and that but if it is so wrong and bad then how come many doctors world wide perform this in children. If it was so wrong the law would of stepped in a long while ago but has not.
Sent from my GT-I9100T using BubHub
So much ignorance in this post but the same is said for girls actually it is said to be easier and less painful for females so we should legalize that so Muslims etc can practice thier faith
A foreskin is not a piece of skin.
Removing it isn't more hygenic.
A child's hair being cut doesn't impact on their bodily integrity.
Not being able to remember trauma is not the same as it not being traumatic.
A properly cared for foreskin doesn't get infected any more than a properly cared for clitoral hood.
There are more and more doctors that are refusing to perform RIC. It's harder to find one that will.
The law hasn't caught up yet because there are religious considerations and politicians rather like the votes of the Jewish and Muslim communities (amongst others).
I didn't go in when my 2 year old had his tonsils out. What's your point?
Probably because you weren't allowed and he was not conscious?
Forskin is not needed. It is a piece of skin that can easily be removed without "harming" or disfiguring your child. With the removal of it, it is more hygenic and better for the child as they do not have to keep cleaning it. Some people have commented about removing it as against this or that because the child is born with it well in that opinion isnt that the same about cutting a childs hair. As truthfully it probably causes about the same amount of pain since they are so young not to remember it. And it is also better to have it removed then as the younger a person is the better there amune rate is which would mean there would be little or no cause for infection or whatnot. Also some people have said it is against this and that but if it is so wrong and bad then how come many doctors world wide perform this in children. If it was so wrong the law would of stepped in a long while ago but has not.
Sent from my GT-I9100T using BubHub
There are more flaps and folds in girls, but we don't remove anything from their body!
Not many doctors perform the procedure worldwide. It's not a common thing in many countries and only approximately 30% of males worldwide are circumcised, with Muslims making up 70% of those who are.
elleseetee
15-03-2012, 20:57
Not being able to remember trauma is not the same as it not being traumatic.
This!
I don't know how to articulate it in words (it's late for me!), but how is "a baby doesn't remember it" a good reason to have it done? It's not like you can get away with doing painful things to a baby just because they won't remember it.
elleseetee
15-03-2012, 21:01
Also those who say its cleaner to be circ'd, I'm so glad my parents didn't knock all of my teeth out to save me from having to brush them.
A baby girl won't remember the trauma of having her clitoral hood removed. Does that make that mutilation okay?
And by the way, on the hygiene issue, keeping an intact penis clean on a baby is easy: leave it alone. The foreskin is adhered to the glans and everything in there looks after itself. It's self-cleaning so just wash it in the bath like you would an elbow.
At some point, your little boy will become absolutely OBSESSED with playing with himself - this is normal and in playing, he will stretch the foreskin and gently begin the separation process himself. You still just leave it alone, Submerged in a bath, as it will be, the penis will be perfectly clean. Besides which, your boy won't be able to leave his naked willy alone in the bath anyway. There will be plenty of sloshing around to get it clean.
When it is retractable, he can just pull it back in the bath or a shower and give it a quick clean. I have yet to meet a man that didn't like giving his penis a tug during a shower so, really, it's not such a hardship.
Probably because you weren't allowed and he was not conscious?
I still don't see your point. Did you have one?
I still don't see your point. Did you have one?
I think the point was that a newborn is not put under a GA for A RIC, so why on earth would a parent not be with them when the procedure was preformed. Obviously your DD would have had a GA therefore you wouldn't have been permitted in the operating theatre. Clear enough for you?
I still don't see your point. Did you have one?
Yes, yes I did! But it is clearly lost on you, which I am quite shocked at because even though I never agree with you, I do consider you to be intelligent, clearly I was mistaken.
Lovemyfam
15-03-2012, 21:41
And by the way, on the hygiene issue, keeping an intact penis clean on a baby is easy: leave it alone. The foreskin is adhered to the glans and everything in there looks after itself. It's self-cleaning so just wash it in the bath like you would an elbow.
At some point, your little boy will become absolutely OBSESSED with playing with himself - this is normal and in playing, he will stretch the foreskin and gently begin the separation process himself. You still just leave it alone, Submerged in a bath, as it will be, the penis will be perfectly clean. Besides which, your boy won't be able to leave his naked willy alone in the bath anyway. There will be plenty of sloshing around to get it clean.
When it is retractable, he can just pull it back in the bath or a shower and give it a quick clean. I have yet to meet a man that didn't like giving his penis a tug during a shower so, really, it's not such a hardship.
this is where I think the infections may come from parents, doctors and nurses seem obsessed with forcing retraction on young kids so of course when you force it its going to loosen and open a bit allowing the bacteria to get in. I could be wrong but its logical. my son is 12 has never had an infection but I also never fiddled with it. My husband is 28 never had an infection but again his mother didnt fiddle with him as a young boy. :highfive:
My nearly 6 year old has never had an infection, either. Nor has my nearly 38 year old husband. Both intact, of course :)
I think the point was that a newborn is not put under a GA for A RIC, so why on earth would a parent not be with them when the procedure was preformed. Obviously your DD would have had a GA therefore you wouldn't have been permitted in the operating theatre. Clear enough for you?
I don't have a daughter.
"Why on Earth would a parent not be with them"?
What are you suggesting? That I am a bad parent or something? As I said before, I was in there for our second. I wasn't in there for the first. They are the experts. They know what they are doing. It wasn't like I could help them with the anaesthetic or anything..... yes, there was anaesthetic despite the common myth of there not being any.
They did not offer for me to go in, so I didn't.
The second one though, after getting some abuse on this forum for not going in, I asked the doc, and he had no problems with it. It was quite an experience though. To this day, that is the only medical procedure that I have ever actually watched. I don't think I could be a doctor. My hat is off to them.
So I am still a little unsure about what the point is? Were you (BigRedV) implying that it is a shocking procedure that they want to protect parents from??? If that was the point, it is clearly lost on me because I watched the second.
I'm sorry that your view of my intelligence has been negatively affected by me missing a point that wasn't really made clear. Maybe you can dumb things down a bit for me?:)
Yes, Father.
Considering two of my friends were just outside while their sons were being done because they felt so helpless and slightly regretful as their baby screamed.
Interesting you say you couldn't help with the anesthetic since Terry Russell states this on his website:
"Parents have a big part to play in applying and reapplying the anaesthetic cream prior to the procedure, and again immediately post-op in comforting and feeding."
I think this thread title should have a foot note, something like this:
Beware you may be judged for your parenting choices.
Judge me for my not circumcising my son all you like :) I'm totally cool with it :D
Interesting you say you couldn't help with the anesthetic since Terry Russell states this on his website:
"Parents have a big part to play in applying and reapplying the anaesthetic cream prior to the procedure, and again immediately post-op in comforting and feeding."
Yes. We did apply the anaesthetic cream prior. We also gave him painstop. I was referring to the injection.
Judge me for my not circumcising my son all you like :) I'm totally cool with it :D
I'm not judging you, my son is also not circumcised and that is my choice.
Father posed this question :
"While you are doing your research, can you please forward any scientific research showing any medical benefits which FGM provides, if you happen to stumble across any"
The paper below ( i cant find a direct link to it ) provided empirical evidence that female circumcision lessons chances of contracting aids in heterosexual intercourse :
Stallings RY, Karugendo E. Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania: for better or for worse. 3rd International AIDS Society Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 24-27 July 2005
The findings were buried.
The reality is, there have been no serious attempts to scientifically evaluate the health benefits of less invasive forms of female circumcision. So, I thow the challenge back to you. Show me credible scientific studies demonstrating no health benefit for less mutilating forms of female circumcision. Explain why for example, no one has looked at the possibilty of trimming the labia to see of this reduces the incidence of urinary tract infection in infant girls. The truth is , no reputable medical organisation would be game to initiate such studies. Any such studies would cause outrage and be considered repugent and offensive. Don't tell me there isn't a double standard here.
Lovemyfam
15-03-2012, 21:57
Father posed this question :
"While you are doing your research, can you please forward any scientific research showing any medical benefits which FGM provides, if you happen to stumble across any"
The paper below ( i cant find a direct link to it ) provided empirical evidence that female circumcision lessons chances of contracting aids in heterosexual intercourse :
Stallings RY, Karugendo E. Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania: for better or for worse. 3rd International AIDS Society Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 24-27 July 2005
The findings were buried.
The reality is, there have been no serious attempts to scientifically evaluate the health benefits of less invasive forms of female circumcision. So, I thow the challenge back to you. Show me credible scientific studies demonstrating no health benefit for less mutilating forms of female circumcision. Explain why no one has looked the possibilty of female circumcision reducing urinary tract infection in infants. The truth is , no reputable medical organisation would be game to initiate such studies. Any such studies would cause outrage and be considered repugent and offensive. Don't tell me there isn't a double standard here.
i had a whole thread with facts if t got deleted WTH?
Judge me for my not circumcising my son all you like :) I'm totally cool with it :D
What you will note Speedy, is that you will not (I hope) find one parent that does circumcise their boys that is judgemental and abusive toward another parent for not circumcising.
The judgement road is one-way only. I respect your decision for what you decided for your children. Whether is was immunisation, bottle-feeding, controlled-crying, cloth nappies, or watching "dirt-girl".
Whatever you decided was what YOU thought was best for YOUR child. That is what is important.
I would suggest that this forum would be more productive with less judgement, and more respect. But I can't see that happening unfortunately in the anonymous world of internet forums. I just hope that you would be brave enough to talk the way you do on here in real life with real people in front of you. This forum is full of aggressive passionate people. I have not yet met one who has 'judged' me in real life for my decisions. I look forward to the day:)
There's a reason for that: the parents that circumcise cannot justify any judgement towards those that don't.
We are secure. Our reasoning sound. Our decision can handle any judgement because it was a good decision.
There's a reason for that: the parents that circumcise cannot justify any judgement towards those that don't.
We are secure. Our reasoning sound. Our decision can handle any judgement because it was a good decision.
Or maybe they just don't care...
The findings were buried.
The reality is, there have been no serious attempts to scientifically evaluate the health benefits of less invasive forms of female circumcision. So, I thow the challenge back to you. Show me credible scientific studies demonstrating no health benefit for less mutilating forms of female circumcision. Explain why no one has looked the possibilty of female circumcision reducing urinary tract infection in infants. The truth is , no reputable medical organisation would be game to initiate such studies. Any such studies would cause outrage and be considered repugent and offensive. Don't tell me there isn't a double standard here.
You want me to prove what now?
Your first point - Are you aware of the null hypothesis? The onus is not on me to prove the non-existence of something. It is on you to prove that existence. Until evidence is provided against the null hypothesis, then the null hypothesis remains.
Your second point - I have no idea. Maybe people tried, but couldn't find anything, that's why there is nothing out there. I can see the headline now - "Researchers find nothing!".
Your second point - I would suggest that there is a vested interest in some cultural groups who practice FGM to fund research to find evidence to support their practice. Private research would be sufficient to get the medical world to ask further questions.
Sorry, what was the double standard? The fact that there is a vast amount of evidence which suggests that there are numerous medical benefits to male circumcision whilst there aren't any for FGM???
There's a reason for that: the parents that circumcise cannot justify any judgement towards those that don't.
We are secure. Our reasoning sound. Our decision can handle any judgement because it was a good decision.
Speedy. You seem to be quite arrogant here. In short, the fact that my risk vs benefit anaylsis came up with the "circumcise" answer indicates that I have enough reason to argue against those that don't circumcise, as it means that they have overestimated the risks and underestimated the benefits (in my opinion). I could debate this with any parent until the cows came home if I chose to do so. But you are right, I could not justify any 'judgement' toward such a parent. That would be rude and achieve nothing.
Yes, you appear secure. Your reasoning is sound. And in your eyes, your decision was a good one. Pat on the back for you. I will not judge you. I respect your decision. A decision which all parents have the choice to make.
I just find it disappointing that anti-circ people do not share this view.
Lovemyfam
15-03-2012, 22:19
You want me to prove what now?
Your first point - Are you aware of the null hypothesis? The onus is not on me to prove the non-existence of something. It is on you to prove that existence. Until evidence is provided against the null hypothesis, then the null hypothesis remains.
Your second point - I have no idea. Maybe people tried, but couldn't find anything, that's why there is nothing out there. I can see the headline now - "Researchers find nothing!".
Your second point - I would suggest that there is a vested interest in some cultural groups who practice FGM to fund research to find evidence to support their practice. Private research would be sufficient to get the medical world to ask further questions.
Sorry, what was the double standard? The fact that there is a vast amount of evidence which suggests that there are numerous medical benefits to male circumcision whilst there aren't any for FGM???
actually studies show it reduced aids by 50 percent, it reduces UTI, it reduces the change that you will get pain by an over stimulated clitoris that can engorge and be painful for some, it gets rid of the smegma you so hate. It reduces the area which moisture can build up which can cause infections. So studies have been done and this is what they came up with. So same reasons yet cant be done so it is a double standard
Kimberleygal1
15-03-2012, 22:26
A friend of mine is now a councillor in one of these places and is hoping to change views, educate men on how wrong it is, educate young girls on their rights and the actions they can take, but it is basically changing the mentality of entire communities who have always accepted that once a period first occurs, she is a woman and to become a woman, a man must take her virginity. It is often an older member of the community who does this.
Same with boys, the aim is to give boys the ability to say no, which is hard because boys *want* to become men.
Im not sure what part of Australia in relation to aboriginal communities your talking about but here where I live is are many traditional aboriginals. I myself know a lot about their culture but the sex part you refer to doesn't happen in the communities here. There is a lot of incest though and just for information the boys are still circumcised the traditional way without anesthetic in a way that would really horrify people, it's done in the bush with a sharp object. That's what you call cruel, sorry got off subject a bit here but...
actually studies show it reduced aids by 50 percent, it reduces UTI, it reduces the change that you will get pain by an over stimulated clitoris that can engorge and be painful for some, it gets rid of the smegma you so hate. It reduces the area which moisture can build up which can cause infections. So studies have been done and this is what they came up with. So same reasons yet cant be done so it is a double standard
Can you provide me with links? Or have you got this from 'circumstitions' or something? A reduction of AIDS by 50% is quite something???? Is this after they had contracted HIV? It 'gets rid of smegma'??? What, like a self-cleaning mechanism? This all sounds quite interesting. Would love to read some more about it.:)
Are you going to get it done since you seem pretty impressed by the benefits? Or don't they outweigh the risks in your eyes?
Speedy. You seem to be quite arrogant here. In short, the fact that my risk vs benefit anaylsis came up with the "circumcise" answer indicates that I have enough reason to argue against those that don't circumcise, as it means that they have overestimated the risks and underestimated the benefits (in my opinion). I could debate this with any parent until the cows came home if I chose to do so. But you are right, I could not justify any 'judgement' toward such a parent. That would be rude and achieve nothing.
Yes, you appear secure. Your reasoning is sound. And in your eyes, your decision was a good one. Pat on the back for you. I will not judge you. I respect your decision. A decision which all parents have the choice to make.
I just find it disappointing that anti-circ people do not share this view.
Hang on, you've been arguing this for how many pages and yet I'm the one accused of arrogance? :confused: I'm secure and confident in my decision and willing to argue the right to bodily integrity for all infants, male and female. I can also argue it until the cows come home, get milked, and trot off with their udders intact ;)
I am passionate on this issue and, yes, I believe that your decision to opt to remove a healthy and functioning and useful part of an infant was wrong. I say so without malice and without any intention to offend and with the hopes that people that are reading this thread, people that are considering this procedure, will think again and understand the ramifications of their actions.
This isn't arrogance. It's my position. It's a position backed by most major health authorities in the world. It's a humane position. And I won't temper my response nor my passion if even one infant can be spared because someone reads these posts, does some research and changes their mind.
share a book
15-03-2012, 22:36
Im not sure what part of Australia in relation to aboriginal communities your talking about but here where I live is are many traditional aboriginals. I myself know a lot about their culture but the sex part you refer to doesn't happen in the communities here. There is a lot of incest though and just for information the boys are still circumcised the traditional way without anesthetic in a way that would really horrify people, it's done in the bush with a sharp object. That's what you call cruel, sorry got off subject a bit here but...
I'm in NQ, and circumcision is not one of the concerns here, the other things are. The girls are protected by law, but thousands of years of cultural traditions can be hard to change. When something is the 'done thing' and change can be seen as negative, it makes things very difficult. The boys are protected by law, too, but because they often want to prove that they are tough, they are less likely to speak out about it.
Lovemyfam
15-03-2012, 22:39
Can you provide me with links? Or have you got this from 'circumstitions' or something? A reduction of AIDS by 50% is quite something???? Is this after they had contracted HIV? It 'gets rid of smegma'??? What, like a self-cleaning mechanism? This all sounds quite interesting. Would love to read some more about it.:)
Are you going to get it done since you seem pretty impressed by the benefits? Or don't they outweigh the risks in your eyes?
Nope not impressed at all, just pointing out the when it comes to double standards for our poor boys.
http://islamqa.info/en/ref/45528
http://www.antropologi.info/blog/anthropology/2010/female-circumcision
"Stallings et al. (2009) reported that, in Tanzanian women,
the risk of HIV among women who had undergone FGC
was roughly half that of women who had not; the association
remained significant after adjusting for region, household
wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer."
Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania:
for better or for worse?
(3rd IAS conference on HIV pathogenesis and treatment)
International AIDS Society.
Kimberleygal1
15-03-2012, 22:39
Hello. Good to see you haven't been scared off by the group attack against your opinion.
Just read the article in the Australian from this week.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/circumcision-may-cut-risk-of-prostate-cancer/story-e6frg8y6-1226297564266
Looks like the RACP may need to update their statement with this new addition.
I thrive on a topic I'm very pro about :D I love it!
This isn't arrogance. It's my position. It's a position backed by most major health authorities in the world. It's a humane position. And I won't temper my response nor my passion if even one infant can be spared because someone reads these posts, does some research and changes their mind.
That is the difference. You are trying to change people's minds and decisions. I am not. I am all for people doing research - they should. There is a heap of great stuff out there.... along with some pretty stupid stuff too. But that is up to the individual to sort through. What I think is stupid, you might think is the most intelligent piece of work ever (eg. that foreskin page). But the decision is not yours to make. All I ask is that you don't judge those who make a different decision to yours. They are not 'wrong'. They are different. It would be a very sad and boring world if we all had to make the same decisions and live the same way as the totalitarian regulating class that it seems you are well and truely a part of.
Kimberleygal1
15-03-2012, 22:45
I'm in NQ, and circumcision is not one of the concerns here, the other things are. The girls are protected by law, but thousands of years of cultural traditions can be hard to change. When something is the 'done thing' and change can be seen as negative, it makes things very difficult. The boys are protected by law, too, but because they often want to prove that they are tough, they are less likely to speak out about it.
So interesting. I study the aboriginal culture, there's a 70% population of indigenous here. The boys go in hiding as they turn 13 because they get hunted by the elder to get taken bush and circumcised. Yes tradition is extremely difficult to change in regards to aboriginal culture.
If researchers had seriously studied the possible health benefits of less severe forms of female circumcision, I'm sure the papers would be out there. WHO recommendations relate to extreme forms of female genital mutilation that clearly cause all sorts of dreadful health problems.
Studies that show no significant difference between circumcised and uncircumcised do get published, I've seen them re stds in the developed world.
Do you really think that medical institutions anywhere in the western world have chopped off bits of girls genitalia to see if it reduces urinary tract infection ? How many parents would willingly be part of that study ? Give me a break !
Your "null hypothesis" sounds impressive but defies common sense and in reality is a cop out. Your can't serionsly believe that "maybe" the possible health benefits of less severe forms of female circumcision have been empirically studied !
I've had my say.
share a book
15-03-2012, 22:48
So interesting. I study the aboriginal culture, there's a 70% population of indigenous here. The boys go in hiding as they turn 13 because they get hunted by the elder to get taken bush and circumcised. Yes tradition is extremely difficult to change in regards to aboriginal culture.
Any culture really. Change is tough.
misskittyfantastico
15-03-2012, 22:50
That is the difference. You are trying to change people's minds and decisions. I am not. I am all for people doing research - they should. There is a heap of great stuff out there.... along with some pretty stupid stuff too. But that is up to the individual to sort through. What I think is stupid, you might think is the most intelligent piece of work ever (eg. that foreskin page). But the decision is not yours to make. All I ask is that you don't judge those who make a different decision to yours. They are not 'wrong'. They are different. It would be a very sad and boring world if we all had to make the same decisions and live the same way as the totalitarian regulating class that it seems you are well and truely a part of.
If you aren't trying to change peoples minds, or influence their decisions wrt to RIC, then what's with your thread/threads in the pro circ section? Just posting for sh!ts and giggles?
Lovemyfam
15-03-2012, 22:51
If researchers had seriously studied the possible health benefits of less severe forms of female circumcision, I'm sure the papers would be out there. WHO recommendations relate to extreme forms of female genital mutilation that clearly cause all sorts of dreadful health problems.
Studies that show no significant difference between circumcised and uncircumcised do get published, I've seen them re stds in the developed world.
Do you really think that medical institutions anywhere in the western world have chopped off bits of girls genitalia to see if it reduces urinary tract infection ? How many parents would willingly be part of that study ? Give me a break !
Your "null hypothesis" sounds impressive but defies common sense and in reality is a cop out. Your can't serionsly believe that "maybe" the possible health benefits of less severe forms of female circumcision have been empirically studied !
I've had my say.
WHO changed their stance on it actually so they use to see no problem with it just like Male circing.
actually Muslims etc do circ their girls so the studies are there,are you saying they cant study and do research? That only the western world can? Little narrow minded, some of the best medical professionals are from the mid east
people chop of boys bits everyday whats the difference?
That is the difference. You are trying to change people's minds and decisions. I am not. I am all for people doing research - they should. There is a heap of great stuff out there.... along with some pretty stupid stuff too. But that is up to the individual to sort through. What I think is stupid, you might think is the most intelligent piece of work ever (eg. that foreskin page). But the decision is not yours to make. All I ask is that you don't judge those who make a different decision to yours. They are not 'wrong'. They are different. It would be a very sad and boring world if we all had to make the same decisions and live the same way as the totalitarian regulating class that it seems you are well and truely a part of.
Of course I am trying to change minds. I see people harming babies - not because they are bad people but because they are bogged down by cultural stones around their necks, because it's the 'done thing', because their husbands and partners and brothers and fathers were cut as babies and so they just do it. I AM trying to change their minds. I am trying to show that those decisions that came to be the norm all those years ago were not good ones, that society has moved on since then, that they have the option to refuse and there are reasons to refuse. Lots of them. Really good ones. Far better than the reasons to do it.
That doesn't make me totalitarian. Or if it does, it makes you just as much totalitarian as you have stipulated that FGM is wrong. And don't kid yourself - you are trying to change minds. Why else would you be arguing? Why else would you be trying to silence my opposition by calling me arrogant or part of a totalitarian class?
I'm totally okay with people being forced to not chop bits of their sons off. Life is a tapestry and we are all rainbows and the world is better for diversity etc etc but unnecessary bodily modifications to the bodies of unwilling, unconsenting infants is a thread that I am happy to do without.
Nope not impressed at all, just pointing out the when it comes to double standards for our poor boys.
http://islamqa.info/en/ref/45528
http://www.antropologi.info/blog/anthropology/2010/female-circumcision
"Stallings et al. (2009) reported that, in Tanzanian women,
the risk of HIV among women who had undergone FGC
was roughly half that of women who had not; the association
remained significant after adjusting for region, household
wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer."
Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania:
for better or for worse?
(3rd IAS conference on HIV pathogenesis and treatment)
International AIDS Society.
Well.
"And Allaah knows best."
And some comment from and anthropologist with no links whatsoever to any studies.
I wouldn't be getting it done either if that is how the 'facts' are presented.
Would you like a re-attack?
Lovemyfam
15-03-2012, 23:02
Well.
"And Allaah knows best."
And some comment from and anthropologist with no links whatsoever to any studies.
I wouldn't be getting it done either if that is how the 'facts' are presented.
Would you like a re-attack?
Ok so I see your closed minded on religion too, the point was its the same as boys, same excuses to cut into children yet you are ok with it if it pleases your beliefs.
do you not see the double standard?
Ok so I see your closed minded on religion too, the point was its the same as boys, same excuses to cut into children yet you are ok with it if it pleases your beliefs.
do you not see the double standard?
I am definately not close minded on religion thankyou. I thought you providing medical facts, not religious reasons?
I do not see the double standards. What I see is lack of evidence of benefits.
Lovemyfam
15-03-2012, 23:27
I am definately not close minded on religion thankyou. I thought you providing medical facts, not religious reasons?
I do not see the double standards. What I see is lack of evidence of benefits.
I posted a medical study about the decreased aids. Also the guy on the religious page was a dr, I think he being a doctor has prob seen more feamles and their issues.
I posted a medical study about the decreased aids. Also the guy on the religious page was a dr, I think he being a doctor has prob seen more feamles and their issues.
I have seen you quote a line. Do you have a link?
misskittyfantastico
15-03-2012, 23:53
If you aren't trying to change peoples minds, or influence their decisions wrt to RIC, then what's with your thread/threads in the pro circ section? Just posting for sh!ts and giggles?
Father, this wasn't a rhetorical question. What is your intent when you start pro circ threads? To simply offer information?
Father, this wasn't a rhetorical question. What is your intent when you start pro circ threads? To simply offer information?
Yes.
There is a substantial amount of misinformation on this forum.
eg. There is no anaesthetic.
They all do it to look like Dad.
No doctors do it anymore
You can't get money back from medicare
It has no benefits
It's so dangerous that boys die
They get strapped down
The foreskin is awesome
etc.
As someone who is circumcised, I would like to think I have something to offer this particular section of Bubhub. Also, as a parent who has had 2 boys done, and seen the procedure first hand, I want to clear up this misinformation that repeated time and time again on here.
I'm sure you will not see any posts from me where I tell parents that they should do it. It is there own choice. The information they use to make that choice though, should at least be accurate - just as the RACP states.
Does that answer your question?
misskittyfantastico
16-03-2012, 00:22
Yes.
There is a substantial amount of misinformation on this forum.
eg. There is no anaesthetic.
They all do it to look like Dad.
No doctors do it anymore
You can't get money back from medicare
It has no benefits
It's so dangerous that boys die
They get strapped down
The foreskin is awesome
etc.
As someone who is circumcised, I would like to think I have something to offer this particular section of Bubhub. Also, as a parent who has had 2 boys done, and seen the procedure first hand, I want to clear up this misinformation that repeated time and time again on here.
I'm sure you will not see any posts from me where I tell parents that they should do it. It is there own choice. The information they use to make that choice though, should at least be accurate - just as the RACP states.
Does that answer your question?
So you're not trying to change anyone's mind?
ETA, I had a re read and I believe that you are trying to influence opinion just as much as any person who is trying to dispel the myths of the pro circer.
Thank you for addressing my post.
Interesting thread. So many opinions.
I personally wouldn't do this to my son.
A penis seems to work fine without having to do anything. Why would anyone want to fiddle with a perfectly working organ? Anyway that's just my opinion.
misskittyfantastico
16-03-2012, 00:33
Yes.
There is a substantial amount of misinformation on this forum.
eg. There is no anaesthetic.
They all do it to look like Dad.
No doctors do it anymore
You can't get money back from medicare
It has no benefits
It's so dangerous that boys die
They get strapped down
The foreskin is awesome
etc.
As someone who is circumcised, I would like to think I have something to offer this particular section of Bubhub. Also, as a parent who has had 2 boys done, and seen the procedure first hand, I want to clear up this misinformation that repeated time and time again on here.
I'm sure you will not see any posts from me where I tell parents that they should do it. It is there own choice. The information they use to make that choice though, should at least be accurate - just as the RACP states.
Does that answer your question?
Now I have more questions. Are you willing to answer them?
The foreskin is awesome. That isn't misinformation. It's fact - biological, medical fact. And I have listed the reasons why. There is also another thread detailing the reasons: http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?450046-Foreskin-functions
And circumcision is dangerous. Babies do die from this procedure. That is also fact. Not ALL babies, certainly, but it is a risk that you take by putting your baby boy on a table (or in your arms - whatever) and let someone remove healthy, functioning and useful tissue from their body.
To say that there isn't a risk of death, to say that people talking about the risks are providing 'misinformation' is out and out false. Completely false. Babies have died and will die from complications that arise from this procedure. You will be required to sign a medical release form that warns you of this risk if you take you infant child in to get parts of him cut off. It's a real and pertinent risk as are the risks of botched circumcisions that may not result in death but other issues such as sexual and erectile dysfunction.
Now I have more questions. Are you willing to answer them?
I'm about to go to bed. But go ahead.
misskittyfantastico
16-03-2012, 00:44
I'm about to go to bed. But go ahead.
Me too, I'll be back maybe tomorrow night.
Babies do die from this procedure. That is also fact. Not ALL babies, certainly, but it is a risk that you take by putting your baby boy on a table (or in your arms - whatever) and let someone remove healthy, functioning and useful tissue from their body.
You are correct. It is a risk. Albeit, extremely unlikely.
From memory, I think the last baby to die in Australia from a circumcision was back in the 1970's.
Point taken.
misskittyfantastico
16-03-2012, 00:54
They all do it to look like Dad. -I know this isn't true for all, but again
No doctors do it anymore
You can't get money back from medicare
It has no benefits
It's so dangerous that boys die
They get strapped down
The foreskin is awesome
etc.
here there is no anaesthetic. I know that my friends in WA have used EMLA, no needle
Most of my friends have cut sons, they've done it to look like Dad and to look like their peers (Regional WA very high RIC stats)
Many hospitals in WA don't do it - you must go to a clinic?
Benefits? In Australia with links to Australian benefits, NOT Africa etc..
I know they aren't strapped down, but I'd like to hear your experience of your son's circ.
My very prem bub had a severe posterior tongue tie and apart from all the other horrible, invasive, painful things he had done to save his life, I had to hold him down while they snipped his tt. It was awful for both of us
Foreskin is cool. Biology wins.
Sorry, I'm tired and this is garbled, but did you go to a clinic?
Give me the benefits for an Australian MALE.
Please (if you're comfortable) share what actually occurred during your sons circ.
These are my questions.
And now I'm really going to bed.:goodvibes:
You are correct. It is a risk. Albeit, extremely unlikely.
From memory, I think the last baby to die in Australia from a circumcision was back in the 1970's.
Point taken.
And it's no coincidence that the death rate began to fall at the same time as the circumcision rates did. RIC rates in the 60s were around 70%, dropping to 39% by the 80s and are now around 12% - remarkably close to the poll results on this thread, actually.
The RACP (Royal Australian College of Physicians) comment that:
After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision. The complication rate of neonatal circumcision is reported to be around 1% to 5% and includes local infection, bleeding and damage to the penis. Serious complications such as bleeding, septicaemia and meningitis may occasionally cause death.
And:
Review of the literature in relation to risks and benefits shows there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure in the neonate.
(The full document can be obtained from the RACP site.)
As such, there is a clear position that there is a risk of infection, damage and death without any clear benefit to outweigh the harm that is done.
Again. The benefits don't outweigh the harm. And there is a risk of complications and death.
JessaKye
16-03-2012, 03:18
http://www9.health.gov.au/mbs/search.cfm?q=Circumcision&sopt=S
Just so you're all aware there are rebates paid by Medicare, so it mustn't be completely unsupported by health professionals if the government is willing to cover part of the cost.
I am not circumcising my son.
Never has come up in conversation with my DP.
I find it silly that:
1- people want their son to "look like his father" which is a purely shallow and cosmetic excuse.
It also teaches children/teenagers that everyone has the same "parts" when clearly the world doesn't.
2- that some people compare this simply cosmetic procedure to the heel prick babies are given.
I think deciding that something doesn't look good and cutting it off is a lot different that scans for genetic disorders.
3- that people cut it off as they know a "friend of a friends, cousins, best friends, mothers. Dog" had it done because their son had such and such issue.....
Just because it was bad for one person doesn't mean it's bad for all.
I'm not going to cut my toes off just cause some people might get toe cancer.
4- hygiene purposes...
Ever thought of teaching the child to clean it properly? I think the millions of millions of men who have a foreskin have no problem with this.
This!
I don't know how to articulate it in words (it's late for me!), but how is "a baby doesn't remember it" a good reason to have it done? It's not like you can get away with doing painful things to a baby just because they won't remember it.
Every experience and sensation our body feels from the time our brains are developed enough to record them go directly into our unconscious. And that begins while we are still in the womb.
Just because we do not 'consciously' remember something does NOT mean it has no effect on us. Unconscious or repressed memories can sometimes have significant effects on our lives, the feelings we feel, the decisions we make.
"First, do no harm".
The RACP (Royal Australian College of Physicians) comment that:
This suggests that parents are in principle better placed than doctors to weigh up the risks and benefits of circumcision for male infants. It is ethically appropriate for the decision about infant male circumcision to be left in parents’ hands, with the proviso that the decision may be overridden in individual cases where circumcision poses greater than
average physical risks to the child (for example, because of concurrent morbidities). To deny parents the option to choose circumcision for their male infant would be to judge that it is clearly detrimental to a child’s overall well being and interests in all circumstances.
Your appeal to authority is lost if you ignore what the authorities are actually saying.
Sorry, I'm tired and this is garbled, but did you go to a clinic?
Give me the benefits for an Australian MALE.
Please (if you're comfortable) share what actually occurred during your sons circ.
These are my questions.
I don't have time today. If you would like the answers, feel free to go through my previous posts. I have talking about my experience probably a dozen times on this thread. It should all be in there.
I know this is the easy way out, but again, I don't really have time today. But if you genuinely want to know what benefits, this resource should help you.
http://www.circinfo.net/
All the facts are very well referenced.
hopefully2
16-03-2012, 09:00
Morning father thank you for your support.
When my son has his circumcision I promise he will not be alone. He will have at least 10 men supporting him, including his dad and grandpa.
Lovemyfam
16-03-2012, 09:05
Morning father thank you for your support.
When my son has his circumcision I promise he will not be alone. He will have at least 10 men supporting him, including his dad and grandpa.
I am glad you will at least be there for him.
Kimberleygal1
16-03-2012, 10:26
They all do it to look like Dad. -I know this isn't true for all, but again
No doctors do it anymore
You can't get money back from medicare
It has no benefits
It's so dangerous that boys die
They get strapped down
The foreskin is awesome
etc.
here there is no anaesthetic. I know that my friends in WA have used EMLA, no needle
Most of my friends have cut sons, they've done it to look like Dad and to look like their peers (Regional WA very high RIC stats)
Many hospitals in WA don't do it - you must go to a clinic?
Benefits? In Australia with links to Australian benefits, NOT Africa etc..
I know they aren't strapped down, but I'd like to hear your experience of your son's circ.
My very prem bub had a severe posterior tongue tie and apart from all the other horrible, invasive, painful things he had done to save his life, I had to hold him down while they snipped his tt. It was awful for both of us
Foreskin is cool. Biology wins.
Sorry, I'm tired and this is garbled, but did you go to a clinic?
Give me the benefits for an Australian MALE.
Please (if you're comfortable) share what actually occurred during your sons circ.
These are my questions.
And now I'm really going to bed.:goodvibes:
Your questions have already been discussed on this thread, you obviously haven't read the entire thread!
Your appeal to authority is lost if you ignore what the authorities are actually saying.
It's not me that is ignoring what they are saying.
Their report clearly and unwaveringly states that there is no medical need for neonatal circumcision. They add that proviso due, I suspect, to religious concerns and cultural concerns. Because, as said, it is clearly stated that the medical risks DO NOT outweigh the benefits.
lovesushi
16-03-2012, 11:01
We did it for our DS (plastibell). Facts are:
There was anaesthetic
DS wasn't trapped down
We got a small rebate from Medicare
It has its risk just like any other operation but I wouldn't say it's dangerous
DS cried a lot and looked distressed but was smiling again after I gave him a feed and played with him
After 1 week he healed
But if I have another son I will NOT do it again.
The main reason is that I can't stand his crying and the look of the wound before it healed, it broke my heart. I'm sick of people on BH disrespectfully judging others for the decision of circumcise or not circumcise their boys, same thing with controlled crying, rear facing car seats.......
I think Father is owed a thanks for weighing in on a topic that he (as someone that has experienced the procedure and seen it performed himself) has quite a lot of knowledge about. I appreciate his input quite a lot, given that it is such a touchy subject.
I still don't agree with circ personally, but it doesn't seem to be the experience I was led to believe. So thanks Father. You don't have convert in me, but I really appreciate your input (and stoicism in direct line of fire hahaha).
Sent from my GT-I9100T using BubHub
elleseetee
16-03-2012, 12:14
Every experience and sensation our body feels from the time our brains are developed enough to record them go directly into our unconscious. And that begins while we are still in the womb.
Just because we do not 'consciously' remember something does NOT mean it has no effect on us. Unconscious or repressed memories can sometimes have significant effects on our lives, the feelings we feel, the decisions we make.
"First, do no harm".
That's exactly what I wanted to say :)
Kimberleygal1
16-03-2012, 14:24
We did it for our DS (plastibell). Facts are:
There was anaesthetic
DS wasn't trapped down
We got a small rebate from Medicare
It has its risk just like any other operation but I wouldn't say it's dangerous
DS cried a lot and looked distressed but was smiling again after I gave him a feed and played with him
After 1 week he healed
But if I have another son I will NOT do it again.
The main reason is that I can't stand his crying and the look of the wound before it healed, it broke my heart. I'm sick of people on BH disrespectfully judging others for the decision of circumcise or not circumcise their boys, same thing with controlled crying, rear facing car seats.......
Our ds's was wrapped in gauze for a week so we didn't have to be looking at it.
Kimberleygal1
16-03-2012, 14:31
It's not me that is ignoring what they are saying.
Their report clearly and unwaveringly states that there is no medical need for neonatal circumcision. They add that proviso due, I suspect, to religious concerns and cultural concerns. Because, as said, it is clearly stated that the medical risks DO NOT outweigh the benefits.
Whatever you choose to believe makes no difference, circumcision is a belief of some people whether you agree with or not is irrelevant, some of us believe it's best and as parents we choose this method for our sons because to us it's the right decision and our choices should be respected by all. It's not a decision parents make lightly.
Kimberleygal1
16-03-2012, 14:33
I am glad you will at least be there for him.
Do you think that if a parent doesn't watch the procedure being done they aren't there for them?
jessesgirl
16-03-2012, 15:35
Babies are people too!!
I know that...But just as its your choice not to it's others choice to do it..
All the nasty comments won't change people's mind- just makes them think you (not you personally) think you have nothing better to do than sit on here and prove your chosen point of view..
singlemumma82
16-03-2012, 15:41
Babies are people too!!
This quote alone sums up my opinion if RIC!
No one in their right mind would force an adult to be circumcised yet people have no issue doing this to a baby because they feel they have the right as the parent.
It makes me sick and I honestly can't believe it is still legal, other than for medical purposes (which I highly support).
Also, as a woman, I prefer an uncut man any day, looks much better (if that is at all possible haha).
Morning father thank you for your support. I am so over these fanatics ramming their two bit garbled opinions down our throats.
When my son has his circumcision I promise he will not be alone. He will have at least 10 men supporting him, including his dad and grandpa.
Thanks. I know what you mean, but they are just anonymous people on the internet. It's probably best just to let them rant and rave with each other.
It sounds like you have a great supportive family behind you. That is what is important. Not the opinion of randoms hiding behind their computer screens.
Good luck with it all.:yes:
Do you think that if a parent doesn't watch the procedure being done they aren't there for them?
Can I ask why you chose not to be beside your baby while he was circumcised? Is it because you didn't want to witness it being done?
biscotti
16-03-2012, 15:47
I'm going to close this for now :yes:
Cheers,
Biscotti
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.