who should have the choice? [Archive] - Bub Hub Pregnancy & Parenting Forum

andrewJ

12-12-2006, 21:22

some people claim that since you can argue either way on the benefits or negative aspects of circumcision, that the parents should therefore be allowed to make any choice they like on the matter.

To me the only reasonable result of the lack of consensus is to let the child himself make up his own mind.

i would also like to challenge anybody who is pro circ to explain what, in particular allows parents the right to decide on the fate of the prepuce of any male children they have.

why have girls been offered protection from the law, even from the tiniest pin *****?

why should parents not be allowed to cut off their daughters breasts?

Of course, this is a far more dramatic operation, however, the benefits are equally, far more dramatic (that is, assuming circumcision has any!), and on the benefits, there is an absolute consensus.

removing breast buds of girls will prevent breast cancer.

the operation that i suggest be performed on all girls WILL save countless lives.

so...why dont we cut off our daughters breasts?

Do we weigh up the pros and cons?

We do not do it simply because WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT.

what other body parts do we subject to this decision?

Now, ignoring the very odd history of circumcision, and its resulting gradual social acceptance, why do you think we have the right to do this for this particular body part and only for this particular gender?

Preventing breast cancer is not the same as saying circumcising a boy may possibly slightly help in maybe reducing urinary tract infections, which, are not really a big deal anyway, and can be easily treated.
or any of the other equally flimsy and contentious arguments for circumcising a boy.

ImSethsMum

13-12-2006, 19:38

may possibly slightly help in maybe reducing urinary tract infections, which, are not really a big deal anyway, and can be easily treated.

I dont want to get into this pro/con debate I just wanted to say that there are a few medical conditions regarding kidney & bowels which means that a urinary tract infection can be very serious and isnt easily treated - they are cases where an infection has required major surgery to save the childs life.

This condition runs in our family (my pregnant sisters unborn child has this also according to all her scans) so I have had to experience the consequences. I wont say that people should circ if they have this condition but I just wanted people to be aware that for some, a urinary tract infection is not an easily treated thing nor can it be taken lightly.

Sorry to get off track on your topic - you can all get back to the debate.
Thanks
Kelly

Trumpet

13-12-2006, 23:20

You obviously feel very stongly about this and this is totally your business. I am a mother who chose to have my son circumcised the very reason of preventing u.t.i's as my son was born with a sizable difference in his left and right renal pelvis and if he got an infection he would be hospitalised and could also have serious implications with his kidneys, the other reason is my husband is Jewish and as I have no religion I was more concerned with my sons long term health. I also believe that when my son is old enough I will explain the reason why I chose to do it and show him the research I did prior to making my decision and I am sure that he will understand.

Your opinions/beliefs are yours to act on as you see fit, please do not attack other peoples reasons or beliefs.

FourAngelKisses

14-12-2006, 05:54

Roopee

14-12-2006, 06:31

WHO SHOULD HAVE THE CHOICE? Ideally the child, however most newborns can not say yes or no so in that case i think BOTH parents need to make it. It shoudlnt be left to one parent- you both made the baby and are responsible for him.

Pippi Longstocking

14-12-2006, 06:46

Quite clearly, the owner of a healthy penis should choose whether or not to have it modified. In the case of medical problems, I think parents have a duty to their child to explore all options and make the choice that causes least harm.

**DISCLAIMER: I am not saying anyone here hasn't done that before I get 15 indignant retorts to the contrary**

I have had to make medical decisions for my children and explored all the options. My 7yo has had her tonsils and adenoids out. Before conssenting to the operation, I did loads of research. I wondered if i had the right to consent to having a part of her body removed. I questioned whether this was better than her continuing to suffer from tonsilitis and other ENT infections. Eventually, i realised that I needed to consent to it - all other treatments had failed and she was suffering. But I couldn't imagine just consenting to having a healthy piece of my child removed "just in case". I do not have that right. I do not want that right. My boys are perfectly intact and will remain that way unless the extremely rare case of medical problems arise. So far between them we have had 0 infections. Yep, none. Zero. Nil..........

Aquamarine

14-12-2006, 07:02

I think the child should have the choice most definantely.

For medical reasons for a young child is fine. If there is no alternative.

I have heard of men who have sued their parents for circumcising them without their permission, and they have every right.

Me (31)
DH (31)
DS (4)
DS (3)
DS (12 weeks)

~Emmylou~

14-12-2006, 11:28

I totally agree with you Andrew which is why my son is intact.
I really wrestled with this issue because practically everyone in my family, and DH's family, as well as DH are all done. I thought about it alot and I kept coming back to the two things you pointed out - It's not my penis so it's not my decision to make, and secondly if he was a girl I would not even be considering it and in fact the very thought of circing a female child would be totally abhorrent.

I couldn't get past these two arguments and hence our decision not to circumcise.

andrewJ

14-12-2006, 11:43

Mister Noodle

14-12-2006, 11:58

Heh, I love the way people claim that their religious beliefs give them the right to harm others.

I believe that Edison invented the lightbulb. Therefore, I reserve the right to lock my children in the cupboard. If you refuse me that right, I shall cry persecution!

Mummy-2-2

14-12-2006, 12:07

i agree completely, there is NO right for me to choose to take my sons skin off him. Yes, if it was a medical emergency, of course, but for cosmetic reasons, ummm NO.

I liken it to getting a tattoo on a newborn... would you do it? NO, would it hurt? HELL YES! would it be a permanent disfiguration that is unreversible (Without huge outlay and time) YES.

Religion can be argued but they are very strong beliefs and I simply would not choose to argue with them, but those "without a reason" who are just doing it cos daddy had it, or cos I like it etc, need to get a conscience

FourAngelKisses

14-12-2006, 12:10

andrewJ

14-12-2006, 13:06

What exactly IS the religious reasoning behind it? Does it give them entry to heaven or something?? I can't see anything religious about cutting a piece of skin off a baby, so can someone please enlighten me.

well actually its pretty complicated. dont let anyone tell you that they know the answer for sure.

essentially religious jews believe that it is when their kid become part of the covenent with god.

the actual history is too complicated to unravel. there are many beliefs as to why it originally began, including the one that "god told us to".

i certainly believe that your religion ends where another persons body begins. However, at least religious jews actually have a very good reason to circumcise their sons.
They generally admit that it is harmful, but they are simply not going to argue with god.

moses maimonides is generally considered the most famous jewish philosopher of all time. he had this to say on the matter.

"Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. "

andrewJ

14-12-2006, 13:36

[QUOTE=Nicole75;902689]. I am a mother who chose to have my son circumcised the very reason of preventing u.t.i's QUOTE]

i agree that this is not the issue here, but i think that this could be considered dangerous advice.
UTI's is one of the very few, or perhaps only condition that circumcision has been shown to reduce the incidence of.
however, in no way does circumcision "prevent utis". It very slightly reduces the risk, however we need to remember that circumcision is a surgery with potential complications which obviously themselves could (and sometimes do) lead to hospitilisation.

http://www.infocirc.org/uti2.htm

Trumpet

14-12-2006, 14:02

[quote=Nicole75;902689]. I am a mother who chose to have my son circumcised the very reason of preventing u.t.i's QUOTE]

i agree that this is not the issue here, but i think that this could be considered dangerous advice.
UTI's is one of the very few, or perhaps only condition that circumcision has been shown to reduce the incidence of.
however, in no way does circumcision "prevent utis". It very slightly reduces the risk, however we need to remember that circumcision is a surgery with potential complications which obviously themselves could (and sometimes do) lead to hospitilisation.

http://www.infocirc.org/uti2.htm

I understand what you are saying but you were asking "what gives parents the right to decided on whether their child should be circ'd. I did not enter into this lightly and did extensive research and spoke to professionals both for and against as to the long term health of my child. This is my right and as a mother I will do anything in my power to ensure the long term well being of my children.

If your sons do not have problems and are in good health then I am all for whatever choice someone wants to make but no-one should be criticised for making an informed choice.

How does the saying go "Do not enter into discussions on religion and politics" They should add circ's to that one......

andrewJ

14-12-2006, 14:26

no-one should be criticised for making an informed choice.

i am not criticising the choice. most circumcision arguments do try to do this, and they lead nowhere.

i am criticising the belief that parents have the right to make the choice in the first place.

For example, DO i have the right to make the informed choice to amputate my daughters breast buds, on which there is 100% consensus, that this will prevent breats cancer, which is a life threatening and amazingly common disease. ? and in doing so i would be doing "anything in my power to ensure the long term well being of my children. "

If i was brought up in a culture that was sympathetic to breast amputation, (for whatever historical reason), perhaps I would feel like i had the right.

But logically, my answer can only be...no.

mum33

14-12-2006, 14:43

unless there is a medical reason for it i think it [text removed by moderator] and should only be done when the child is older because they themselves have chosen to do so. there are little, if any medical benifits to having it done and the arguement that "daddy has it done" and "its more hygenic" ***text removed by moderator*** dont sit well with me. if a parent wants to chop a bit of their childs anatomy because of cosmetic reasons ***text removed by moderator*** then they should stop and think about what they are really doin to their child in the long term. in fact it has been said that a circumcised child now is part of a minority and that its not really done these days.

Ana Gram

14-12-2006, 14:50

The same argument could be made for immunsations.

mum33

14-12-2006, 14:53

The same argument could be made for immunsations.

i totally disagree...

OneBabyBoy

14-12-2006, 14:55

My son too was born with a kidney disorder and his right kidney now has just over half of it's usual function. His left is damaged too, but is working harder to compensate for the other.
He is intact, I think it should be his choice as to whether or not he has it done. The thought of getting him done didn't even enter my head, but he had already had 2 huge surgeries, so I wasn't about to let him go under the knife again.
Thankfully he has never had any UTI's though.

I was born with a condition very similar to your son's (if not the same) that developed into hydronephrosis. My right kidney only has 8% of its usual function and the other one is enlarged to make up for it.
I get UTI's all the time, especially when I became sexually active. I get a UTI about every 3 - 6 months.
They are easily treated with antibiotics and when you recognise the symptoms you can even treat them before too much pain kicks in.
My point to all of you is that I think the "health reasons" debate is ridiculous. I do have a kidney disorder and none of my UTI's have affected that in anyway. UTI's are very veyry very rarely - if ever - that serious,especially if you keep an eye out for the signs and symptoms and get it treated early.
noone circumcised me, of course not I'm a female its illegal and I believe it should be for males too. If I was a male and they had circumcised me for this reason it would have been completely unneccessary because as ive shown these things are totally managable if you keep an eye on it.
With medical research advancing all the time it becomes more and more unneccessary especially for people of my sons generation.
UTi's suck and they can hurt but if treated early they are not permenantly damaging.
I know ive rambled but I hope you can all see my point.

Roopee

14-12-2006, 15:00

one answer to my question was that the child cannot say, and so the parents should decide.

why not apply this logic to every body part?
tonsils,
breast buds
fingers (makes finger hygeine easier)

my question really was what is it about the foreskin that makes people feel justified in making the decision for their child? and not any other body part.

everything has the potential to get diseases or cause problems.

this is not a question of benefit vs risk, which always comes down to a personal opinion.

my question is why we feel the need to consider routine circumcision as an option in the first place.

i believe i know the answer.
i.e that circumcision has already become socially acceptable.
it became socially acceptable for some very silly reasons, largely based on a puritanical victorian attitude to sex.

the other main reason is that it has religious implications, and essentially, people do not want to offend jews or muslims.

i am jewish. what offends me most, is that people believe my parents had the right to decide how much of my genitals i was allowed to keep.

It was me who said that and just have to say my boys are both are both intact! I agree with you AndrewJ. I said that because the majority of boys who are circumsised are done as newborns-or are too young to have a voice.Its not until they reach their adolesence or teens or adulthood that they can actually voice their opinions, which is extremely sad and unfortunate.
As i said, i agree with your posts- i was stating something that i dont neccasarily believe in but its what happens.:)

ImSethsMum

14-12-2006, 20:45

Ive just had a read of everyones posts and understand all points of view.
Andrew was asking why do parents think they have the right to make the choice for a child. I think the answer to this one would be that all parents are responsible for their children till they are of legal age. They are responsible for loving them, feeding them, caring for them, helping them grow, shaping them into adults. They are responsible for getting them medical treatment (immunisations, checkups etc) for protecting them from harm, for holding their hand when they need it and singing happy birthday. Parents will do anything for their children because we love them. The fact that parents opinions are all different as no two people are the same, is where conflict occurs. A parent in an African nation may think that marrying off their daughter at age 10 is the right thing to do, A parent in a country where girls are circumcised might also feel this is the right thing to do. We can all sit back and judge .... but we are all parents who think our opinion is the right one - and our children are the product of this.
So to sum up - parents think they have the right to make decisions for their child because they are responsible for that child 100%.
Thats just my opinion though .....

Trumpet

14-12-2006, 21:13

andrewJ

14-12-2006, 21:31

Andrew was asking why do parents think they have the right to make the choice for a child. ........parents think they have the right to make decisions for their child because they are responsible for that child

ok, but when it comes to amputating body parts, why is the foreskin the ONLY one where parents feel they have the right to make this decicion.

if the reason that the circumcision decision is justified is that parents are 100% responsible for that child, why is the breast amputation decicion (to prevent (NOT possible slighty reduce) breast cancer) not justified.

it is not as simple as saying we can make whatever decisions we like about our childrens bodies.

Clearly, there is a line, and OUR society considers that routine breast amputation is over that line.

my question still remains, what is the difference between breast amputation and foreskin amputation which justifies considering the decision for one but not the other.
?

Shanaynay

14-12-2006, 21:36

ok, but when it comes to amputating body parts, why is the foreskin the ONLY one where parents feel they have the right to make this decicion.

if the reason that the circumcision decision is justified is that parents are 100% responsible for that child, why is the breast amputation decicion (to prevent (NOT possible slighty reduce) breast cancer) not justified.

it is not as simple as saying we can make whatever decisions we like about our childrens bodies.

Clearly, there is a line, and OUR society considers that routine breast amputation is over that line.

my question still remains, what is the difference between breast amputation and foreskin amputation which justifies considering the decision for one but not the other.
?

Because forseskin is apparently useless. Breasts have a prupose (feeding babies)... and we definately need our fingers!

the_queen

14-12-2006, 21:38

Foreskin isn't useless!!

the_queen

14-12-2006, 21:40

http://www.notjustskin.org/en/circumcisionfaq.html

3. What is the value of the foreskin?

The foreskin has protective, sensory, biomechanical, and immunological functions. Throughout life, the outer part of the foreskin protects the sensitive inner part of the foreskin and the glans from injury, abrasion, chafing, and infection. The foreskin keeps its mucosal tissue and the glans soft and moist so that it maintains sensitivity. During sexual activity, the foreskin glides up and down over the glans, providing sensation from thousands of specialized nerve endings in the inner foreskin. Parts of the foreskin, including the frenulum (a narrow membrane on the underside of the foreskin) and the ridged band (the edge of the foreskin, between the inner and outer skin), are particularly important in sexual function. See the Circumcision Information Resource Center, under "Foreskin sexual function." Circumcision removes most of the inner and outer foreskin, and destroys these functions.

The foreskin secretes immunological substances that fight infection, called lysozymes, and also produces natural lubricants, reducing the need for artificial lubricants during sex. The presence of the foreskin can enhance the sexual experience for both partners. Polls of women who had experienced both circumcised and uncircumcised partners indicated a strong preference for the latter, with longer duration of coitus and higher rate of orgasm cited as the main reasons (for example, see "The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner").

mum33

14-12-2006, 21:44

Because forseskin is apparently useless. Breasts have a prupose (feeding babies)... and we definately need our fingers!

if it were useless then it wouldnt be there? i dont actually know why its there (can someone enlighten me?) but every body part we have is there for a reason. god didnt create foreskins just so they can be chopped off.

mum33

14-12-2006, 21:48

http://www.notjustskin.org/en/circumcisionfaq.html

you answered my question before i posted....lol

thanks! so i guess i am lucky DP isnt circumcised. better anywas, ***text deleted by moderator***

FourAngelKisses

15-12-2006, 05:54

My little toe is useless, but I'm not about to get it chopped off. :no:

andrewJ

15-12-2006, 07:30

im the early 1900s. there were 180 structures of the human body that were considered useless.

Surely we can agree today that the skin on the penis, (in particular, the MOST erogenous and sensitive skin on the the entire male body) is far from useless, and not only for this reason.

PhAnToM

15-12-2006, 08:22

if it were useless then it wouldnt be there?

One word for you.. "appendix"!
It also has no apparent function, but we have it. So that's not a great retaliation.

But my concern is more with the OP.
I'm sorry, but I think this "breast bud amputation" thing has been said a few too many times in this thread. I'm a little concerned because now I'm starting to feel you are pro breast bud amputation, rather than against circ. :rolleyes:

LA62

15-12-2006, 08:26

One word for you.. "appendix"!
It also has no apparent function, but we have it. So that's not a great retaliation.

But my concern is more with the OP.
I'm sorry, but I think this "breast bud amputation" thing has been said a few too many times in this thread. I'm a little concerned because now I'm starting to feel you are pro breast bud amputation, rather than against circ. :rolleyes:

Well said lut!:yelclap:

you said what i was thinking:D

angel_one

15-12-2006, 08:40

PhAnToM

15-12-2006, 08:57

just out of curisity, how many of you let your hubby have a say in the matter?? just wondering cause i left the boy things up to my hubby, just as i know he will leave the girly things up to me (cant quite see him giving dd the period talk!!)

so that im not the nasty ***** deciding to chop of a peice of my sons man parts, i have left the decision to my husband - as he is a man, and him self has been circumcised.

have a say in the matter??? :confused:
We are BOTH parents to our children.. both the boy and the girl. So we make ALL decisions about BOTH children, no matter how big or how "trivial" together!
Just because they are the same sex doesn't mean I can't debate the benefit or the risks of something; and the same goes for him.
We're a lateral thinking couple, we are! :yes:

Can't see how having matching genitals means we have the last say on that child.

Mister Noodle

15-12-2006, 09:19

And again - why the hell don't people leave it up to the owner of the penis, to have it done himself should he ever feel the need?

Why this insistence on having it done before he can give informed consent?

andrewJ

15-12-2006, 13:41

One word for you.. "appendix"!
It also has no apparent function, but we have it.

I'm sorry, but I think this "breast bud amputation" thing has been said a few too many times in this thread. :

like i said, in the early 1900s there were almost 200 parts of the human body with "no apparent function"

neither the foreskin not appendix are vestigial.
the appendix contains lymphatic tissue and therefore has a role to play in the immune system.

how can the most sensitive erogenous part of a mans body be considered useless? this is not is only function by the way.

has this really turned into a debate about whether the skin on a mans penis serves any purpose?

i thought we were past that.

the "breast bud thing" is constantly being brought up, because 1) I constantly need to remind people what my question was
2) my question has not yet been answered.
3) it is entirely relevant

Ana Gram

15-12-2006, 14:40

err before you use the rolling eye emoticon, you might want to look up the function of the appendix. In modern day humans, it has no function and serves no purpose but it is still there.

mum33

15-12-2006, 14:50

err before you use the rolling eye emoticon, you might want to look up the function of the appendix. In modern day humans, it has no function and serves no purpose but it is still there.

well why dont they take them out these days? i had appendecits (sp) and was in pain but was only given antibiotics. the doctors said that they dont take them out these days... :confused:

still, i believe God created every bit of us for a reason. if he put appendix's in us, then it is there for a reason. i dont care much for what medical science has to say. those people said my stepdad would die 5 months ago and he is still here alive and well. as goes for many other people in my family who have been giving death sentences but after many years are still here. so i will keep my opinion thanks. :rolleyes:

Ana Gram

15-12-2006, 14:55

And I will keep my opinion of the appendix has no function and your god had no part in creating me. Oh almost forgot one of these :rolleyes:

FourAngelKisses

15-12-2006, 14:59

And I will keep my opinion of the appendix has no function and your god had no part in creating me. Oh almost forgot one of these :rolleyes:

Just did a search on the appendix.......

The purpose of the human appendix is not really understood. We do know that some animals have a similar organ, which is used to process vegetable fibre. These animals have larger well-developed appendices. It is thought that maybe our appendix is a remnant of a time when evolution had us digesting fibre, a function our bowel can no longer perform. The human appendix contains lymphoid tissue � the cells that can produce antibodies to fight infection. It isnt really clear why the appendix contains this tissue.

xkwzit

15-12-2006, 17:03

This thread is not about appendices. Can we please get back to the topic or the thread will be closed.

Cheers

Shanaynay

15-12-2006, 19:01

Nooooooo - I meant to come back to this thread after I posted that the foreskin is apparently useless but I haven't been online today.
(Just want to say that I am very anti-circ incase my previous post came accross pro :o )

Well... I do believe that is why circs are allowed and accepted - because people do think the foreskin is useless. As Queen posted, it does have a function/s - and I believe that if it's there - it must have a purpose.
So maybe human beings are fine without it - ... but we would also be fine without our fingernails. I dont think you will find parents ripping off their babies fingernails :eek: Just an analogy there - but (I've forgotten what the orignal debate was about :o ) ummm... yeah that's why people think it's ok to remove it I think. Apart from the people who do it on basis of religion etc..

andrewJ

16-12-2006, 02:45

so we have established that some people think the foreskin is useless.

this, in their eyes justifies the option of removing it at birth.

EVEN IF the appendix were useless (and it is not), are we allowed, and do we have the right to remove it at birth.

do we have the right to consent to any surgery (with its inherent risks) that is not necessary for a third person (our children).

the answer, in general, and in the eyes of the law is no, APART from the case with the male prepuce.

my question is why is there this discrepancy.?

my suggested answer, is that because of the very odd history of circumcision, our culture has already become somewhat sympathetic to circumcision.

If our culture had (for whatever silly historical reasons) become sympathetic to routine masectomies for children, and this was justified as a prophylactic measure (and THIS would actually work!!!), would we then consider that we had the right to do this?

i am sure that many people would.

but, objectively, i think it is clear that we do not have the right to do either.

Pippi Longstocking

16-12-2006, 05:29

s

my suggested answer, is that because of the very odd history of circumcision, our culture has already become somewhat sympathetic to circumcision.

[text deleted]

Unfortunately, the belief that circumcising is fine seems to be difficult to change for a lot of men because they simply do not want to admit that their own penis may be lacking or imperfect. My ex partner was hugely insulted when I said I absolutely would not under any (non medical) circumstances consider circumcising our sons. And it was all because he took it as a criticicm of his own circumcised penis. Now, I have plenty of legit criticisms of said organ, but I won't go into that here :p but needless to say, the circumcision was the least of my worries. However, he couldn't see that it wasn't about him. It is just bizarre that he perceived me protecting my children from unnecessary surgical body modification as a criticism of him but this is really common, from what I have read and heard. And so the cycle perpetuates - men doing to their babies what was done to them because they don't want to accept that what was done to them flawed them.

The only way I can see to break the mentality and "normalness" of circumcision is to be quite vocal in my belief that it is wrong, harmful, primitive and unethical. I know that offends some people but I want people to really think about what they are doing to their sons and namby pamby bollocks about parental rights and choice etc isn't going to do that. We need to change society's perceptions of this procedure. It's happening - gradually. But yay for declining circ rates! :yelclap:

the_queen

16-12-2006, 05:43

:yelclap: Well said Them! That makes such perfect sense.

Can I?

16-12-2006, 06:33

:yelclap::yelclap::yelclap:

Great post Them. You are one very eloquent lady. That is exactly how I feel about speaking out too.

MotherNurture

18-12-2006, 09:49

Skimmed the thread and just wanted to share my thoughts about parents thinking they have the right to circumcise because they are responsible for their children until they reach legal age. Certainly, children are a responsibility but that doesn't make them posessions to do whatever we please with; there are limitations. Many people consider genital integrity a basic human right of all children, regardless of gender, nationality, race, religion, etc.

How could a male child have any less of an inherrent right to his foreskin than a female child has to her clitoral hood---the anatomically analogous structure?

Jen

kristi001

18-12-2006, 21:37

Well looks like i am one of the few that says that i believe its the parents decision..

( Saying this i will add this is my opinion!!! The question was asked and i am voicing my opinion!! There is no need for a debate.. :) )

I think its just one of those decision we all face as a parent.. We have to make tough decisions all the time in our childs life and we do what we feel is in the best nothing more nothing less..

If i chose to circumcise my son that MY decision..

He could grow up to recent me for making that decision but so be it..

If i chose to leave my sons foreskin on and by chance he had problems with it

He could recent me for NOT taking it whilst he was still a child..

There is no knowing what the future may hold.. You could leave it on and he may never have a problem in his entire life or you could leave it on and he may have to go through alot of embarrasment and pain if he happens to have problems!!

So in answer to your question Andrew..
IMO I think the decision lies with the parent...

Which i find funny that you ask a question, state your side then abuse anyone that has a different one..

So i am looking forward to everyone abusing me for going against what they have said :D

the_queen

18-12-2006, 21:52

I haven't seen Andrew abusing anyone...? :confused:

kristi001

18-12-2006, 22:05

Sorry queen i didnt mean to sound like i singled him out.. I meant to word it so i didnt have to point fingers..

***quote of deleted text removed***

shed

18-12-2006, 22:13

I just do the best I can with the information I have, same as everybody else.

So far this has led me to leave my beautiful baby intact. I have been given no good reason to have his foreskin removed.

He won't look the same as his Dad, but his Dad doesn't seem to think thats a problem. From a cosmetic perspective we think its more important for him to look the same as his peers, and since its not done much anymore, most of them won't be circumcised either.

Some of my friends have had their baby sons done, and my brother and his wife are getting my nephew done. I feel very strongly about NOT getting it done in regard to MY CHILD.

Mister Noodle

18-12-2006, 23:37

I dont sit there and say the decisions you make as a Parent are ****** So i i dont think there is a need to say that about anyone elses. :)

Or alternatively, people could actually voice their honest opinions, and run the risk of people actually disagreeing with them.

A scary concept, I know - but perhaps it might work better than this mutually assured blind-eye-turning, which frankly comes across as more than a little insulting.

I for one will happily step up and defend my decisions on their own merits - to imply that people are unable to, that they can only hold their head up because others keep silent - paints a sad, sad picture of everyone involved.

pegasus

19-12-2006, 01:10

I haven't been near the circ threads for a while so for anyone who's read my story about my stepson before, my apologies.

I truly don't understand people saying let the child decide. Fair enough when that child isn't classified as a child anymore, but children don't fully know consequences of their actions - their brains aren't fully developed until they are through adolescence.

My DSS wasn't done at birth (I never questioned this - when my son was born my dr gave me info but said it's not done routinely anymore and if you want someone to do it, I don't, so I assumed the same with my DSS). Then, when he was 10 (we were just returning from interstate after living away for 2years), on our way to pick him up for an access visit, his mother contacted me and said - "DSS is getting circumcised on Monday - I hope his dad is okay with that". She said DSS had requested it as he wanted to look like the other boys at school - hmmm - my understanding was that it was more the minority of boys that are circ'd of this age. What happens when he gets to high school and finds out more boys aren't circ'd? He can't get his foreskin back.
My point is that the mother said he'd requested it, there was no medical reason for it. It was at the point that his father couldn't really talk to him properly about it - we picked him up on the Friday prior to the procedure on Monday. The mother told me she didn't really want him done, but he'd asked her so she organised it.

The reason for my DSS' procedure was a psychological one. Low self-esteem. Having the procedure done did not help that, infact I don't think that 18months down the track he even thinks about it- it doesn't affect him anymore. Pre-teen boys can tease about lots of things, freckles, glasses, weight whatever.

My point is that letting a child decide just seems wrong. I don't believe he had the capacity to make that decision. He hadn't been sexually active, he hadn't had any infections - I just don't get it. If he'd been done at birth I wouldn't even have questioned the fact that he'd been done.

PS My hubby isn't circ'd (neither is my son).

andrewJ

19-12-2006, 01:16

i think people who say 'let the child decide' mean let him decide when he is old enough to understand the decision.

i.e the same way we let girls decide for themselves if they would like to have their genitals mutilated, or whether they would like to reduce their risk of breast cancer by 50% by cutting off one of their breats.

and the same way we let people decide on whether or not they want a tattoo, or other bodily scars, all of which are perfectly fine, UNTIL you force a child to have one.

MotherNurture

19-12-2006, 03:35

I think its just one of those decision we all face as a parent.. We have to make tough decisions all the time in our childs life and we do what we feel is in the best nothing more nothing less..

If i chose to circumcise my son that MY decision..

He could grow up to recent me for making that decision but so be it..

If i chose to leave my sons foreskin on and by chance he had problems with it

He could recent me for NOT taking it whilst he was still a child..

The reality though is that it's not a decision that needs to be made in infancy at all; no medical organization in the world recommends routine infant circumcision.

Only 1% of boys will *ever* require a circumcision for medical reasons.

On the other hand, in addition to the pain, trauma, and immediate surgical risks of newborn circumcision at least 1% of circumcised boys will require a 'recircumcision' or circumcision revision. 10% of circumcised boys will end up with meatal stenosis-the most common complication of circumcision-usually also requiring additional surgery, sometimes under general anesthesia. In addition, 70% of circumcised boys will aquire penile adhesions...so common it's considered more of a side-effect of circumcision then a true complication.

(The most recent recommendations suggest penile adhesions should be left alone, and will self-correct by puberty. However, in the meantime they can be visually unappealing and cause irritation...and many doctors will just lyse (rip the skin back) the adhesions during office visits with a firm tug, sans anesthesia. Adhesions commonly reoccur, so boys may go through this painful procedure many times as well.)

Leaving your son intact is erring on the side of caution with regard to his health, comfort, and future wishes. Many people call circumcision a "personal choice", and I agree! It's VERY personal. It's a very intimate part of a future man's body. Thank goodness there's no compelling reason why parents have to guess what he might prefer, no reason the decision can't wait and be deferred to him as a consenting, fully-informed adult with the option of a truly painless operation under general anesthesia, and other personal preferrences relating to circumcision method and style.

I think most parents realize that few adult men would willingly part with their foreskins, allowing someone to take a scapel to their genitals without a VERY good reason. That's why there's this rush, why parents see it as a decision they're 'faced' with...because, rather than now or later, circumcision is virtually always an issue of now or NEVER. If you don't do it while he's tiny, before he can have a say or defend himself, chances are he'll go through life with a foreskin. In that sense, I think parents are very often asserting their personal preference when they circumcise, based on their own comfort levels and familiarity, rather than what HE would likely prefer. That concerns me very deeply from an ethical/human rights standpoint.

Jen

kristi001

19-12-2006, 07:36

Mothernuture I think you made very good points :)

Mister Noodle I believe there is a difference between voicing your oppinion and insulting another persons choices as a parent. I can only imagine the outcry if i had said that someones choice in religion ect was ******** so i dont think it is neccessary to say it about other choices we "Force" onto our child.

I am actually on the fence with the whole issue of circumcision. I neither agree or dissagree.But wether the actual operation is right or wrong thats a different question all together.

My child is not currently circumcised even thou We had alot of pressure from both sides of the family after Harrison was born. Thou if We decide at a later date to do it then so be it.

Karizma

19-12-2006, 08:03

Mister Noodle I believe there is a difference between voicing your oppinion and insulting another persons choices as a parent. I can only imagine the outcry if i had said that someones choice in religion ect was ******** so i dont think it is neccessary to say it about other choices we "Force" onto our child.

:yelclap: :yelclap: :yelclap:

PhAnToM

19-12-2006, 08:47

Well looks like i am one of the few that says that i believe its the parents decision..

No, you're not.
I just think that these people are sick of debating the same things over and over and over again! :rolleyes:
The circ thing has been done to death, and it just goes in circles and the thread meets the same end each time. It crashes and burns because of such inflammatory comments as the
"daddy has it done" and "its more hygenic" dont sit well with me.

I generally look at threads that are a repeat of others and wonder what it is they expect to achieve that the previous 100 have not?!?! :confused:

:wizard:

andrewJ

19-12-2006, 08:53

wether the actual operation is right or wrong thats a different question all together.

there is nothing wrong with circumcision in itself, likewise tattoos, breast implants, etc. The line is crossed when any of these things are forced onto a third person for no good reason, especially, a child.

circumcision is not wrong, but i believe that circumcising a child without a medical reason is wrong.
Likewise, giving your child a tattoo.

Having the tonsils of your child removed, without an existing medical reason, would also be wrong.
this does not make tonsillectomies in themselves wrong.

ANY operation is wrong, when it is not needed, and when the decision is made at the whim of a third person.

The aim of this thread was to find out if people who support routine circumcision, also support the parents right to remove their childs tonsils without an existing medical condition, or the right to remove their daughters breast buds to prevent breast cancer, or to remove their daughters clitoral hoods.

If routinely circumcising males is the ONLY operation where people believe the parents have the right to decide, I'd like to know why this is so.

what is so unique about male circumcision?

I started this thread to understand the mindset of a pro circer. It frustrates me that i simply do not understand their logic.

Unfortunately, it may be the case that their really is no logic at all.

vespertine

19-12-2006, 09:10

The human species is too far evolved for any of our body parts to be 'useless.' We're all designed too well. Normal, healthy human beings are born complete, and removing anything considered 'useless' is tampering with perfection! People should stop being so ridiculously pig-headed and arrogant as to think they know better than nature. We are but drops in the ocean of a grand organising design.

I think the original post is valid and significant. I believe that human beings should have as much autonomy over their own bodies as possible, and that means deciding what is cut off and injected into their own healthy bodies. Therefore my son is not circumcised and not immunised. If he became ill in some way, I would then re-assess, BUT as long as his body is sound, healthy and complete, it'll damn well stay that way.

Pippi Longstocking

19-12-2006, 09:13

Karizma

19-12-2006, 09:23

I dont personally believe in circumcision, But it is not illegal, and people have the right to do it. I do not think it is right to call people pig-headed and arrogant because you dont believe it is right. :shame: :shame:

andrewJ

19-12-2006, 09:35

do they have the right simply because its not illegal?

it was only 10 years ago that female circumcision was legal in Australia.

10 years ago, did parents have the right to circumcise their daughters?

i understand what you are saying, but WHY do you think parents have the right to circumcise boys?

pookiesossige

19-12-2006, 09:40

No, you're not.
I just think that these people are sick of debating the same things over and over and over again! :rolleyes:
The circ thing has been done to death, and it just goes in circles and the thread meets the same end each time. It crashes and burns because of such inflammatory comments as the
"daddy has it done" and "its more hygenic" dont sit well with me.

I generally look at threads that are a repeat of others and wonder what it is they expect to achieve that the previous 100 have not?!?! :confused:

Well, thank goodness we can debate these things over and over again! Or would a return to the days when topics like this were never discussed and relevant, up-to-date information wasn't presented to parents be more appropriate?
Threads like this do tend to crash and burn. But not before they are read by often hundreds of forum guests and users. There have been some really great posts (vespertine, Them) and the ideas within them reflect some of my own views and opinions- and those of many. This thread serves a purpose and thank goodness we re-hash this sort of stuff over and over:

On the other hand, in addition to the pain, trauma, and immediate surgical risks of newborn circumcision at least 1% of circumcised boys will require a 'recircumcision' or circumcision revision. 10% of circumcised boys will end up with meatal stenosis-the most common complication of circumcision-usually also requiring additional surgery, sometimes under general anesthesia. In addition, 70% of circumcised boys will aquire penile adhesions...so common it's considered more of a side-effect of circumcision then a true complication.

Wonderful post, MN.

Karizma

19-12-2006, 09:40

i understand what you are saying, but WHY do you think parents have the right to circumcise boys?

I think for hygienic reasons and medical reason it is legal, and religious reasons. Each to thier own, but they all go part and parcel dont they, abortion, circumcision, your breat bud thing :laughing: and on and on, they are all either like or detest things. They will always be controversial because thier will always be back yardies if the professional doctors arnt allowd to do it. Female circumcision was definatly wrong because it was to dull any sexual gratification, but male circumcision can be used for more practical reasons, and can be medically necessary.

andrewJ

19-12-2006, 10:24

I think for hygienic reasons and medical reason it is legal, and religious reasons. ...Female circumcision was definatly wrong because it was to dull any sexual gratification, but male circumcision can be used for more practical reasons, and can be medically necessary.

female circumcision is believed to be more hygeinic, is argued to reduce the incidence of AIDS, and many other diseases. It is also believed by many to make the girls genitals look much better, and it too has religious implications.

There are very many proud circumcised women in Africa and Asia, who demand the right to circumcise their daughters.

Female circumcision clearly does have an impact on the womans sexuality. However, many circumsied women do not accept this, "it is no different".

If you went to a place where female circumcision is commonplace, you would be considered dirty, and they would wonder how your parents could have neglected such an important part up your upbringing.

Outside of religious and tribal reaons, male circumcision also began as a way of controlling and subduing the male sexuality.

In other words, there is not such a distinction between female and male circumcision.

Of course there is the issue of degree. I would agree that female circumcision is more drastic, but the two are of the same type.

However, female circumcision is not always more drastic.

Why am i somehow within my rights to amputate my sons foreskin, but would be arrested if i amputated my daughters clitoral hood?

these are the words of LeYoni Junos, an Amnesty International Section Director, human rights commisioner, and feminist;

“If the mutilation of the genitals of females is considered to be a violation then it is a given principle that the same would apply to the male. But in reality, seemingly because of the cultural blinders on some of the individuals that are implementing these principles, there is some kind of reluctance to give male genital mutilation [MGM] full recognition. This is purely cultural bias.”

failure to apply international human rights standards without discrimination on the basis of sex makes male circumcision “fully qualify as a human rights violation” because “it removes highly sexually sensitive erotic tissue, and has the effect of compromising the sexuality of the individual.”

“The fact is that circumcision and other forms of male genital mutilation (MGM) have been used to suppress men’s sexuality and subjugate men, but this fact is not well known. You only need to look at medical journals of the 1800s and early 1900s, and you can find innumerable references to circumcision being performed on young boys to prevent masturbation.
there are articles that show that British and North American male children were being circumcised without anaesthetic deliberately so that they would associate it with being punished for masturbation. I would completely disagree that male circumcision is not ‘grossly violative.’ This is all part of controlling sexuality. I believe that once society realizes that the origin of a practice is to control and subjugate, then that practice should definitely cease. That is at least one good reason to stop.”

Karizma

19-12-2006, 10:37

andrewJ

19-12-2006, 10:45

to prevent us going off on a tangent, I would like to state that everybody (including me) already knows that usually female circumcision is far more damaging that male circumcision.

However, there are different forms of both.

Why am i somehow within my rights to amputate my sons foreskin, but would be arrested if i amputated my daughters clitoral hood?

(and by the way, male circumcision does affect the use of the penis, the Victorian doctors knew this all too well, and it is the very reason that routine circumcision began in the West in the first place)

Karizma

19-12-2006, 10:52

Why am i somehow within my rights to amputate my sons foreskin, but would be arrested if i amputated my daughters clitoral hood?

Well the simple answer to your question, the reason why you have the right to amputate your sons forskin: It is legal.
The reason you would be arrested for amputating your daughters: it is illlegal.

Other then that I dont think you are going to get the answers you want here.

Mister Noodle

19-12-2006, 11:02

AndrewJ:
There's your answer. People don't uniformly apply their ethical standards - they make ad-hoc exceptions for cultural traditions.

Asking them to justify their position is pointless, because they don't use justification for their position. It isn't something they arrive at by the application of some principle, it's an axiom that their principles are forced to work around.

If you insist on a justification, they'll make one up on the spot from the first thing that comes to mind, and/or get extremely angry at you.

The most common position is 'all parents know what's best for their child', which is frankly bollocks, or we wouldn't have the DOCS. Being a parent does not magically make people infallible - people can and do make stupid and/or horrible decisions when raising children, and the universe isn't magically wired up to ensure that the children will only benefit therefrom.

But here at least we're all meant to live in complete denial of this fact, and pretend that absolutely everyone is specially imbued with the infinite prescient wisdom to make the exact choices that will always turn out to be the very best thing in the end for their own offspring, while simultaneously being completely and totally incapable of making the vaguest judgement of the effects of other people's decisions, if that judgement is negative.

You can agree with people, support their decisions and congratulate them on how utterly wise they are, and everyone will respect just how clearly you see things.

But the moment you see disaster lurking, you're nothing but a clueless idiot.

God and the IPU forbid you should actually have a strong negative opinion, or actually CARE about the consequences of someone else's judgement.

You can't achieve what you're trying to achieve. Holding up both ends of people's ethics in front of their face won't make them see that they don't meet in the middle. It's called cognitive dissonance, and you can't battle it head on. Especially not when people's insecurities are so thoroughly shielded.

All you can do is put it out there and hope it'll slowly seep in around the edges.

Mister Noodle

19-12-2006, 11:04

Karizma: he's speaking of the ethical/moral right, not the legal right.

Karizma

19-12-2006, 11:07

Karizma: he's speaking of the ethical/moral right, not the legal right.

U think???

MotherNurture

19-12-2006, 11:18

Either way Andrew, I think female circumcision actually effected the use of the vagina, where as circumcising a boy doesnt affect it's use at all. But thats my personal opinion. People believe in thier religion to a very strong degree, and you will find if this becomes illegal the parents will just go to someone whos operating illegally to get it done, and I personally would NOT like to see on the news and in stories and documentries about boys who have suffered severly and have lost use or suffered severe injuries because back yardies operating on them.

You're certainly entitled to think that, but there are different types and degrees of female genital mutilation, ranging from the relatively conservative/minor to the extreme. Sunna circumcision for instance is directly comparable to infant male circumcision, as it removes the female prepuce or foreskin, the clitoral hood.

Circumcision absolutely does affect the use of the penis, because it excises the only independently mobile skin on the penis shaft; the foreskin isn't a flap, it's a double-layered tubular shealth that slides back and forth over the glans during sexual activities, eliminating the need for artificial lubricants, decreasing the possibility of abrasion, and helping to keep intercourse smooth and comfortable for both partners. Circumcision also removes tens of thousands of specialized nerve endings and sensitive, uniquely functional structures like the ridged band and frenulum. Google "foreskin 3zones" to view photos of just how much skin (1/3-1/2 of the skin on the penis) is lost.

Many have suggested that medicalizing female circumcision may prevent many of it's more severe complications, like post-op infections, hemorrhage, fistulas, horrific childbirth complications, and death...but there's still the pesky little issue of it being a blatant human rights violation to restrain a female child and modify their genitals without consent or medical indication.

BTW, there *are* horror stories of male circumcisions going wrong; particularly ritual circumcisions performed via tribal customs result in hundreds of hospitalizations and deaths each year. In the Jewish community in the U.S. there were recently several cases of Herpes transmitted to babies by mohels from *orally* (yes, you read that right) suctioning blood from the newly-circumcized tip of a 8 day old newborn's penis. However, the most famous case of may be the case of John/Joan in which an electro-cautery accident during a hospital circumcision fried a baby's penis to crisp, causing the entire organ to die, shrival, and fall off. He was raised as a girl and eventually committed suicide. You can google "David Reimer" for the whole story.

Jen

xkwzit

20-12-2006, 21:30

Thanks to everyone who is contributing positively to this polarising topic. I think it is great to be able to discuss circumcision in a mature and constructive manner. We may not all agree, but it is this difference in views that gives us the space to share really valuable information.

Cheers

Mister Noodle

20-12-2006, 22:51

Here's a thought: what percentage of intact males go on to choose non-medical circumcision for themselves in adulthood?

Let's be generous and say 5% - though I'm betting it's actually far less.

So if you circumcise your child, you can be 95% certain that it's the very opposite of what he'd choose if he had the information, experience, and judgment to decide for himself.

Think about it.

reAllytee

20-12-2006, 23:02

Well all i can say is if in however many years my son decides i have done wrong by him then so be it i shall wear that but i highly doubt there will be a problem.

Little Gorilla

20-12-2006, 23:06

It would be DF's and my choice...more so DF as I don't have a penis.

My son has been done as he needed to medically...so the choice was taken out of our hands.

I think in all likelyhood if I fed my child high levels of sugar everyday until he was 15 or let him get sunburnt everyday of his life...he would have far more to get angry at me for if he ended up with diabetes or melanoma...than if I decided to circumcise him when he was young.

andrewJ

21-12-2006, 20:57

of course there are worse things than needlessy circumcising your son.

but this is one thing that can so easily be avoided.

reAllytee

21-12-2006, 21:21

Andrew i can understand what you are saying but i guess the thing is while its still "legal" there are always going to be those who do circ.
Sure give research & facts to those still wondering its awesome for them to access to such things but i guess what im saying is that still after they have researched & made the decision to circ it has to be accepted that it is their decision.
Like i have said no one can judge me only my son can & when the time comes if he hates me for it so be it i shall wear that & gladly accept responsibility but when it comes down to it i really doubt it will be an issue for us.

Kizmet

21-12-2006, 21:46

I have just spent I have no idea how long reading this thread and I understand both sides of the argument, it just seems like you are wantins us to provide you with answers Andrew but when we do you want more! Perhaps we can't help you with the answer that you are looking for?

andrewJ

21-12-2006, 21:56

the only answer to my question that makes any sense, is 'we feel that we have the right to amputate this part of our sons body because doing this is legal (at the moment)'.

It is quite obvious to me that this does not justify this needless surgery, or ANY needless surgery.

But if that is the only answer there is, i guess I'll give up and all I can do is hope that some are able to realise what is so obvious.

reAllytee

21-12-2006, 22:08

I guess for me its not so much that i do it because its legal but i chose to do it after watching 4 friends go through it as teenagers etc. Yep maybe i shouldnt be preparing for the what ifs but i also dont think i would be prepared for my son being harassed when older due to complications.
Its a hard decision im not saying i took it lightly or i want everyone else to do it because i really couldnt care what anyone else does. I did what was best for my son.
But i guess i can see why you would question.

Trumpet

22-12-2006, 10:23

i am not criticising the choice. most circumcision arguments do try to do this, and they lead nowhere.

i am criticising the belief that parents have the right to make the choice in the first place.

For example, DO i have the right to make the informed choice to amputate my daughters breast buds, on which there is 100% consensus, that this will prevent breats cancer, which is a life threatening and amazingly common disease. ? and in doing so i would be doing "anything in my power to ensure the long term well being of my children. "
If i was brought up in a culture that was sympathetic to breast amputation, (for whatever historical reason), perhaps I would feel like i had the right.

But logically, my answer can only be...no.

[quote=andrewJ;916739]there is nothing wrong with circumcision in itself, likewise tattoos, breast implants, etc. The line is crossed when any of these things are forced onto a third person for no good reason, especially, a child.

circumcision is not wrong, but i believe that circumcising a child without a medical reason is wrong. You say this but yet you question my very reason for doing so !!!!!

Let me just say this, that if my DD was born with something found in her breasts and I was advised medically that if we did not have them removed she would get cancer, I would have to make that choice and to save the life of my daughter, and I would. But luckily as she did not there is a greater chance that she will not get breast cancer and if she does later in life then she will be old enough to decide what she wants to do.

So you see it doesn't make a difference if I am advised medically that my children need intervention to assist in their long-term well being I will do so.

Also Andrew J if you were in my position are you saying that if your son could reduce the risk of going through painful UTI�s for around 15 years (assuming this is the age they can decide for themselves what to do) that you would willingly do so? Then have them suffer the embarrassment and pain if they do decide to get circumcised then?