What do u prefer

Do you not understand the role of a parent? It is to make decisions for their kids until they come of age. As i said, waiting for circumcision is not a 'good option,' because it becomes MORE dangerous and takes a buttload longer to heal.

There is plenty of medical reasons for circ. You won't accept them, but whatever. I'll at least grant you that in Western countries...the benefits of circumcision are not nearly as big as they were or are in less developed countries. But please don't tell me that there are no hygiene problems for most uncirced men in the world...

this is what canada's doctors say:

"Circumcision is a “non-therapeutic” procedure, which means it is not medically necessary. Parents who decide to circumcise their newborns often do so for religious, social or cultural reasons. To help make the decision about circumcision, parents should have information about risks and benefits. It is helpful to speak with your baby’s doctor. After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."

and "The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns. There is therefore no indication that the position taken by the CPS in 1982 should be changed. When parents are making a decision about circumcision, they should be advised of the present state of medical knowledge about its benefits and harms. Their decision may ultimately be based on personal, religious or cultural factors."


This is what britains doctors say:

"There is a spectrum of views within the BMA’s membership about whether non-therapeutic male circumcision is a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure or whether it is superfluous, and whether it should ever be done on a child who is not capable of deciding for himself. The medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proven except to the extent that there are clear risks of harm if the procedure is done inexpertly. The Association has no policy on these issues. Indeed, it would be difficult to formulate a policy in the absence of unambiguously clear and consistent medical data on the implications of the intervention. As a general rule, however, the BMA believes that parents should be entitled to make choices about how best to promote their children’s interests, and it is for society to decide what limits should be imposed on parental choices."

And Australia:

"The Paediatrics and Child Health Division, The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) has prepared this statement on routine circumcision of infants and boys to assist parents who are considering having this procedure undertaken on their male children and for doctors who are asked to advise on or undertake it. After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision."


STRONGLY against it? Sure doesn't sound like it. They are against mandatory circumcision for sure. But they are not condemning circumcision or saying they should never be performed. Please don't pass on false information.

 

Please get off your high horse. You don't need to attack someone. Lets keep this civil.

 

U have no right to insult me as u have. U do not know the reasons why i couldn't breastfeed, so dont think that u know me!. .

And let me tell u mi dear. Who the HELL are you to tell me what i should do to MY child! Who the Hell are you to offend someone in that nature, when we are having a discussion and you were absolutely rude. !! How the hell do u know that I haven't done hours of research on this topic.. U should Keep your big mouth shut!!!!

 

why is it that in this thread, the 'freedom loving hippies' sound rather reminiscent of ultra right wing fundies forcing their will on others and condemning those who do not abide by their 'enlightened rules?'

 

Here here!:agree:

 

Look, I haven't attacked anybody, though I side with the non-circing people....I just have to say, maybe it's because we can't wrap our heads around why people would willingly harm their own children? Their own defenseless newborn sons?

 

I don't see advocating for a child's right to his whole body as forcing my will on someone. How 'bout if I decide I want to have a normal healthy part of another person's body removed? Then who's forcing one's will on whom?

 

I didn't know it was possible to fit so much propaganda (from BOTH sides, might I add) into one thread. I will venture to say that circumcision being thought of as an act of genital mutilation is foreign and shocking to the majority of Americans. From my experience, the general public sees circumcision as pretty normal. So to those of you adamantly opposed to circumcision, please realize this. Structure your arguments from a position that addresses this, without personal attacks, and your arguments will be stronger and more readily accepted. And to those who have never even considered that circumcision may be harmful or unnecessary, do some research and question tradition.

 

As I said before, just because you and most of the western population aren't conscious enough to be aware of such effects, doesn't mean they're not there.

Perhaps if more men delved deeper into their pshyche we could uncover far more evidence to support this but because our society is filled with people like you ("if the baby cant tell you its wrong it aint", "if the trauma is so buried and not evident in day to day life it aint there") I guess science will never even look there.

"A man of little learring is like a frog who thinks its puddle a vast ocean"

 

This coming from a woman who in another thread told an uncircumsised man he had an "ugly, smelly penis". If you dont like being insulted and rudeness, why dont you become the change you want to see?

And researching one side of an argument isn't research.

 

From the sounds of one of your posts, it wasnt that you couldn't breastfeed. It was that you CHOSE not to. You chose, despite the copious amounts of research and data gathered to show how formula is in no way equal to breastmilk, to do something harmful to your child.

And you expect me to believe that you made a choice for your son based on what is best for his health?

 

Ok everybody, deep breath, calm down. Walk away for a little bit. Wait a while before responding, think out your responses, calm down a little. To -everyone- on either side of the argument here, mmk? If this gets down into insults and pseudo-screaming matches it completely defeats the point of this thread even being open, doesn't it?

 

They wouldn't "willingly harm their own children". People circumsize their sons because that is what was done to them. The rhetoric of "barbaric mutilation" doesn't work very well, because obvious implication is that my loving parents are barbarians who wanted to harm me. The fact that I am circumsized in no way implies that my parents love me any less than the parents of an uncircumsized man.

Strong words from anti-circ. make people less likely to change their family habits. Softer words should be used to convice new parents to not have the proceedure done.

 

I never said that people should not be doing research on HIV/AIDS. I suggested that they take a tiny fraction of the budget -- chump change to Bill Gates, he wouldn't even really need to reduce what he's giving to med research -- and put it toward effective sex ed, he could do a LOT that would have a far more immediate effect in preventing the spread of HIV. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

And, as you can probably sense, I don't take your opinion to be an accurate representation of world affairs. Care to state some credentials?

Why do they not have that opportunity? Perhaps because funding instututions are wasting their money on "faith based initiatives", religious propaganda pushing abstinence, instead of spending the same amount of money on effective sex ed.

Would you please try to make sense when writing? First, Bill Gates is doing nothing but throwing money around to make himself look good so that people stop hating on Microsuck. But, yes, I am glad to see that people are throwing money around to medical researchers.

Second, how does my stance on circumcision have anything to do with my opinion of people trying to find a cure for HIV/AIDS? Let's pretend for a minute that a scientifically sound study, controlling for all social factors that may confound the results, were to actually show some miniscule link between circumcision and reduced transmission of HIV... What on earth does that have to do with a cure? That's no cure, honey. That's a tiny gram of prevention. I'm simply suggesting putting that money (which is going toward the circ study, not money that would otherwise go to the search for a cure) toward the ounce of prevention that sex ed and free condoms would provide.

 

Actually, that's not entirely true. That's only true when talking about MGM. But the second anyone mentions female circumcision (aka FGM), every American I've met has screamed about those barbaric Africans mutilating their innocent girls. They don't care why "those people" say they do it, it obviously is a brutal act of male oppression. They don't care if African women claim that they enjoy sex and wouldn't want to be intact, they obviously just don't know how good sex could be or they obviously are just that completely under men's control or whatever.

So why is it bad to cut off a woman's labia and clit, but good to cut off a chunk of a man's penis? Both presumably reduce sensation, but that is an entirely subjective measure and many who have had either type deny that they've had any negative effects. Both involve the risk of complications and infection. From what I've read, a clitoridectomy performed in a hospital (sanitary conditions, anasthetic, sterile equipment, etc.) is no more risky than a male circumcision. Both can be traced to religious explanations. Both are also attributed to making the genitals attractive to the opposite sex. Both are justified by proponents as promoting cleanliness.

I like to use the term MGM to point out that hypocrisy. Some won't get it. Others will. I'm in academia -- it seems that everyone here has at least heard of FGM (an many have reacted emphatically against it), so it's a useful comparison to make... Maybe that's not true outside of universities.

 

Everyone has a right to their own opionion and just becuase i dont agree with 'anti-circumsion" doens't make me a bad person or a bad mother!

And bringing my parenting syle into this argument is absurd.!!!

 

heres a site i just found about sex ed in africa!
this was dated in 2000. so it might not be totally up to date. but im sure not much has changed in this aspect.
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/kushnir.356/cross-cultural_perspective__sex_ed_in_africa

this was found @ the bottom of that page

In regards to this issue, improving sex ed would not be sufficient to reduce the rates of HIV infection in Africa, rather, a deeper change must take place within the culture to have any effects on the rate of disease. It is important to recognize that even appropriate sex education may not be enough to influence adolescents to make good decisions in some countries

 

You wan't relevant data
www.nocirc.org
www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org
www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org
www.nurses.cirp.org
www.motheragainstcirc.org

Anyone who IS adequately informed of the issue would NOT have it done. Plain and simple.

 

I have to weigh in my opinion since I, unlike most here, have a penis. I have never met another man who has had a negative problem with being circumcized, physical, mental or otherwise. There is another point that no one has addressed yet. Alot of fathers feel that a boy's penis should look like his fathers. It sounds funny, I know, but it's true. Mutalation is a very inflamitory way to describe the procedure and not very accurate. Also I, being circumcised, enjoy the reduced sensation. It makes sex last longer, and since the average duration of sex is 7 to 8 minuets (according to sex research) shoudn't you women be eager for anything that would lengthen the experience? No pun intended.

 

Zeep, at what cost is that increased length? A circumcised penis loses the rolling action of the foreskin, which brings more pleasure to both parties. It also loses the softening, lubricating effect, which necessitates artificial lubrication - a very big business in the US and pretty small in non-circumcising countries.