View Full Version : Thoughts on RIC
MummaBear03
05-04-2010, 16:08
Private Poll
MummaBear03
05-04-2010, 16:10
I'm not talking about medically required circumcisions, or partial circumcisions that were medically required. Just those done routinely as a preventative measure.
Lillynix
05-04-2010, 16:11
Human rights violation.
It's his penis so it's his choice. Not his parents. Simple.
studyingECS
05-04-2010, 16:12
It's a parent's choice but I personally do not agree with it.
CocktailBubba
05-04-2010, 16:14
Parents choice- their child, their choice.
Just also wanted to say that there are other reasons as well as the one that has been mentioned.
SmithJane
05-04-2010, 16:31
Parents' choice. They are not doing it to cause harm to their child. They are doing it in their best interest.
Lemmings
05-04-2010, 16:34
I dont agree with it at all. If a boy wants it done when he is old enough to make the decision then so be it. but the decision should not be made for him
A human being submitted to unnecessary genital modification against his or her will is absolutely a human rights violation.
It is not the parent's choice, it is not their penis!
Without real medical necessity, I truly don't understand how it is any different than FGM.... or why it is allowed to continue....
MummaBear03
05-04-2010, 17:00
Without real medical necessity, I truly don't understand how it is any different than FGM.... or why it is allowed to continue....
I don't get it either. Unless it's causing problems that can only be fixed with surgery, I don't see the reason for preventative surgery.
our3boys
05-04-2010, 17:03
parents choice:yes:
FertileMertile
05-04-2010, 17:49
I didnt vote coz I wasnt quite sure which one to pick!
I think as parents we should make the decisions for our children until they become old enough to start accepting responsibility BUT I think circ for a non medical reason is a human violation
I'm pretty sure Mummabear03 didn't mean medically necessary circumcision.
A human being submitted to unnecessary genital modification against his or her will is absolutely a human rights violation.
It is not the parent's choice, it is not their penis!
Indeed.
Until I joined BH, I thought the issue was pretty done and dusted.
I remember somebody asked about it at my antenatal class, and the midwife looked a bit horrified and said that the hospital didn't do them.
Routine infant circumcision is something I really can't comprehend, to be honest.
Lemmings
05-04-2010, 20:41
It doesn't include medical circs as stated in Post #2
soexcited
05-04-2010, 20:45
I put parent's choice but we ultimately decided we couldn't do it. We walked and talked about it and researched it like crazy. When we first found out we were having a boy we were "getting him done", no questions asked. After all the research we ultimately decided there wasn't enough to convince us to out our son through it.
It's definately the parents' choice. It is legal in Australia. Many doctors do it, and medicare rebate the procedure.
We did a large amount of research and came to our own conclusion that it was in our boy's best interest to get it done while he was a newborn.
if bodily integrity is a human right (and it is), then it is clearly a human rights violation.
Of course parents dont intend to harm their children, but whether or not a human right is being violated does not depend on the intentions of the violator.
Female circ is done with the best of intentions.
CookiesRYum
05-04-2010, 21:30
i picked human rights violation although i am never really sure how i feel about it as a part of religion. From what i understand it is standard jewish practice and has a solid foundation in their religious teachings? I had never thought much about it until my sister told me about a jewish patient at the sexual health clinic. Poor guy he thought he had an sti although he wasn't sexually active he had had a yet dream. He was nineteen. Anyway at his request they tested for infection which meant taking swobs from his penis. This required him to hold the eye of his penis open. This was unimaginable for this guy he told he his religion didn't allow him to even touch his penis to go to toilet. My sister is not able to touch it so she explains he has to do it and they settle on him wearing gloves. He attempts to do it but faints twice because it is too much for him. So is it fair and reasonable that his parents circ him at birth?
Lemonhead
05-04-2010, 21:49
Removing part of a baby's body when the are incapable of making the choice for themselves, for THEIR body...thats a huge human rights violation.
i picked human rights violation although i am never really sure how i feel about it as a part of religion. From what i understand it is standard jewish practice and has a solid foundation in their religious teachings? I had never thought much about it until my sister told me about a jewish patient at the sexual health clinic. Poor guy he thought he had an sti although he wasn't sexually active he had had a yet dream. He was nineteen. Anyway at his request they tested for infection which meant taking swobs from his penis. This required him to hold the eye of his penis open. This was unimaginable for this guy he told he his religion didn't allow him to even touch his penis to go to toilet. My sister is not able to touch it so she explains he has to do it and they settle on him wearing gloves. He attempts to do it but faints twice because it is too much for him. So is it fair and reasonable that his parents circ him at birth?
I think human rights need to be universal.
it should be the person's choice therefore i voted human rights violation. i leave my boys' penises alone, if they want to be circed then they can make that choice when they are older.
overitand36
05-04-2010, 21:58
tail docking of animals is now illegal
about time this was also stopped
i think people who choose circumcision are in the minority and one day no one will be doing it the reasons for simply make no sense it TODAYS society
Indeed.
Until I joined BH, I thought the issue was pretty done and dusted.
I remember somebody asked about it at my antenatal class, and the midwife looked a bit horrified and said that the hospital didn't do them.
Routine infant circumcision is something I really can't comprehend, to be honest.
Same thing happened at our hospital classes. Someone asked about it and the nurse was pretty much horrified and stated that it isn't performed as much nowadays. She asked how many people wanted info about it and at least six couples put their hands up :( They shouldn't even be offering the info, IMO.
CookiesRYum
06-04-2010, 08:10
Same thing happened at our hospital classes. Someone asked about it and the nurse was pretty much horrified and stated that it isn't performed as much nowadays. She asked how many people wanted info about it and at least six couples put their hands up :( They shouldn't even be offering the info, IMO.
agreed my sister is a mid at a catholic hospital and they don't really offer it as such. Standard practise is to tell parents it's not recommended and no need to peel back foreskin to clean etc. If foresking is too small when kid grows up it can be dealt with in and give stats as to how low this actually is. There are no dr at her hospital that will perform it anyway.
I would just like to add the thoughts of a collection of international bodies who have expressly looked at the 'human rights' side of circumcision.
Infant male circumcision: ethical, legal and human rights considerations
Studies have shown that the circumcision of infants is simpler and carries fewer medical risks
than circumcision of older people. Parents considering circumcision of an infant boy should be provided with all the facts so they can determine the best interest of the child. In these cases,determining the best interests of the child should include diverse factors—the positive and negative health, religious, cultural and social benefits. Because the HIV-related benefits of circumcision only arise in the context of sexual activity, and because male circumcision is an irreversible
procedure, parents may consider that the child should be given the option to decide for himself
when he has the capacity to do so.
And:
Male infants and children
Male circumcision performed on infants involves the least physical risk. In counselling parents who are offered, or who request, male circumcision, health providers have a responsibility to explain all of the pros and cons, including that male circumcision is an irreversible procedure, and that it provides a child with no benefits in relation to HIV until the child becomes sexually active. However, there
are possible immediate benefits, such as reduced likelihood of urinary tract infections in infancy (see Annex 1 for examples of other possible benefits). Parents considering infant male circumcision may wish to leave the decision to their child, waiting until he has the capacity to consider the risks and benefits on his own. However, some parents, in the context of the best interests of the child, may wish to have their male child circumcised as an infant after considering evidence that there are fewer medical complications associated with the procedure when performed at an early age.
In the case of infants, informed consent must be obtained from parents, the child’s legal
guardians or, in the absence of both, the primary caregiver.20 All decisions must be based on the best interests of the child. Parents should be provided with clear and understandable information on the benefits and risks of male circumcision in infancy compared
with older ages, including when the child is mature enough to decide for himself.
http://data.unaids.org/pub/Manual/2007/070613_humanrightsethicallegalguidance_en.pdf
In their eyes, as long as the parent give informed consent and has the best interest of the child at hand, it does not constitute a human rights violation.
Mrs Nietzsche
08-04-2010, 09:07
The truth is, this is not done as a 'preventative medical reason'. It's done for aesthetics and perception of hygiene. All this endless debate about various studies and so on is pointless. Because it's not about the studies, the risk of disease, or w/e. Its about being fixated on the penis and how it is supposed to look and function, as dictated by cultural norms.
Mrs Nietzsche
08-04-2010, 09:10
Father if you can't work out from that passage that the UN is recommending leaving the decision to the child, but not condemning parents making the decision, then you are hopelessly blinkered.
However, its good you posted that passage, it supports leaving it to the boy.
Father if you can't work out from that passage that the UN is recommending leaving the decision to the child, but not condemning parents making the decision, then you are hopelessly blinkered.
However, its good you posted that passage, it supports leaving it to the boy.
It says that parents "may consider" waiting.
It supports both 'leaving it to the boy', and parental consent. It is leaving the decision entirely up to the parent.
The truth is, this is not done as a 'preventative medical reason'. It's done for aesthetics and perception of hygiene.
As someone who has not circumcised their boys (assumption), how would you know why it was done? I did it for my first boy, and will for the second. Both ARE FOR 'preventative medical reasons'.
It is absolutely ridiculous (and to be frank, quite strange), to take such a drastic step as cutting the skin from your child's genitals in order to prevent a medical condition which may never occur.
While we're at it, lets remove newborn's tonsils 'in case' they get chronic tonsillitis, and their appendix, just in case they get appendicitis. We'll just hack away at them JUST IN CASE. I have watched a male circumcision being performed and I felt sick to my stomach, to the point where I had to stop watching. How could anyone do that to their little baby just in case?!!
Removing parts of my son for NO particular reason at this current point in time IS a violation of his rights.
Thermolicious
08-04-2010, 16:17
Human rights violation.
It's his penis so it's his choice. Not his parents. Simple.
:iagree: 100%
Thermolicious
08-04-2010, 16:24
I've started to watch an infant circ you tube video, and I distinctly remember vomiting as they were strapping the crying child down- paged closed never watched anymore :(
Lolanthe
08-04-2010, 18:11
One of my best friends is looking into commencing legal action against his parents because they circed him. So i'm guessing he would see it as a human rights violation, as do I. I agree wholeheartedly with John Shanahan:
TODAY, there is no justification for routine removal of the foreskin. As Wallerstein argues in Circumcision: An American health fallacy, all the past benefits of the surgery have been disproved and passed into the realm of medical history.
XY: men, sex, politics, 4(1), Autumn 1994. XY, PO Box 4026, AINSLIE, ACT, 2602, AUSTRALIA
MummaBear03
13-04-2010, 09:58
One of my best friends is looking into commencing legal action against his parents because they circed him. So i'm guessing he would see it as a human rights violation, as do I. I agree wholeheartedly with John Shanahan:
XY: men, sex, politics, 4(1), Autumn 1994. XY, PO Box 4026, AINSLIE, ACT, 2602, AUSTRALIA
Thank you for posting this.
Fuchsia!
13-04-2010, 10:02
Human rights violation.
It's his penis so it's his choice. Not his parents. Simple.
A human being submitted to unnecessary genital modification against his or her will is absolutely a human rights violation.
It is not the parent's choice, it is not their penis!
Without real medical necessity, I truly don't understand how it is any different than FGM.... or why it is allowed to continue....
I agree with all of the above :)
serendipity22
13-04-2010, 10:11
The baby(later to grow into a man) has no power in the situation but cops 100% of the damage.
Its completely ethical.
As for 'parental rights', how about men circed as babies, who become parents. These parents had the right to an intact body removed. All parents (and adults who are not parents) surely have the right to an intact body.
luvmyboys
13-04-2010, 10:22
I couldn't imagine having parts of my child removed for prohylactic reasons, especially when the majority of supposed benefits come much later in their lives.
serendipity22
15-04-2010, 16:38
There seem to be more pro-circ people in this forum than what you would find in the general population.
Lily of the Nile
15-04-2010, 22:35
There seem to be more pro-circ people in this forum than what you would find in the general population.
I agree, even circed men in my family never did their sons and it's not even a topic of discussion. So I've definately seen more pro-circ people on here who are quite passionate about it.
I voted no.2 btw.
MummaBear03
16-04-2010, 10:10
I'm quite ok with having these discussions on FB and IRL which are not so anonymous ;) and have yet to come across a single person who doesn't agree with me. Most say "Is that still done? I thought that was an olden day thing" :laughing:
[QUOTE=MummaBear03;4683539 Most say "Is that still done? I thought that was an olden day thing" :laughing:[/QUOTE]
:laughing: I get that one a lot too.
I actually had a debate quite recently with my DH's friend who kept trying to tell me that it was outlawed years ago. I was like "wishful thinking, but it still happens"!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.