For the anti-circs/and whoever else is interested

Kathy - posted on 03/10/2011

Female Genital Mutilation and Male Genital Mutilation (ie circumcision) are, in fact, the same. The only difference is in degree.

Sarah - posted on 03/10/2011

Patricia, if you are going to encourage the use of condoms, what was the point of circumcising?
I'm not attacking, i'm just genuinely curious :)
Other than your first some of course, i'm sorry to hear about that! Did you get the others done because you were worried they would have to go through that too?

Patricia - posted on 03/10/2011

i would always advise condoms when they are consenting adults circusised or not and i agree with Katherine and Brandi this is stupud

Sarah - posted on 03/10/2011

Agreed with Jodi!
And i'll add, I definitely don't want it to be a legal procedure, but like i said suddenly making it illegal won't STOP circs, it will minimize the amount performed and maximize risks to the infants with the dumbass parents who do it illegally.
That's why i think it should be phased out!
EDUCATION is the most important thing! If there is enough education and the routine aspect is taken away, there will be a significant drop in circs and then making it illegal won't make such an impact on society.

ANDDD saying FGM and RIC are the same thing is insane i'm sorry to say. They are both awful procedures but FGM is 100 times worse that RIC. girls suffer for the rest of their life, they can barely have sex or birth a child because of the scarring, the tissue that makes natural lubrication is gone, infection risks are extremely high and many other things. I agree that they are both cruel, outrageous procedures and are similar as far as human rights go, but i think the comparison is a bit far fetched.

Charlie - posted on 03/10/2011

If it were illegal like FGM is though then religion wouldn't be an exemption , I think the only exemption would be REAL medical issues .

Georgia - posted on 03/10/2011

Michelle would most likely be on an exemption list, because of her religion, if RIC were to be ome illegal.

Jodi - posted on 03/10/2011

Ok, here is a test. Michelle, if they made it illegal (just hypothetically), what would you do?

Charlie - posted on 03/10/2011

Dear papa smurf , it is only cleaner if you don't believe in showering and healthier ? no it's not considered " COSMETIC " for no reason ...., but unless we want to add another 100 posts on debating the " health benefits " we will leave it at that .

Michelle - posted on 03/10/2011

I am jewish and my son was circumcized in the hospital right after he was born, It is common place in my religion for this to take place, it is also cleaner and healthier. I reserve the right as a parent to make decisions that i feel are in the best interest of my son and his general health and well being.

Jodi - posted on 03/10/2011

"people are saying that RIC shouldn't be made illegal because it's just another law getting in the way of parents' rights- and that parents know what is best for their children.



And those same people are saying that if it DOES become illegal 'all of a sudden' that people will resort to having circumcisions done out of the hospital without a medical professional. "



Actually, I don't think the ones who are concerned about it becoming backyard are the same people who are saying it should remain legal because it is their right. I am concerned about the ingrained culture in some people which will possibly result in backyard circumcisions, but I in NO WAY believe it should remain legal because of any parent's rights. I don't think thos people who will consider backyard circumcision have any rights to do it either, for religious or any other reasons. BUT, i know some of these type of people well enough to know that a law will not stop it. I am pretty sure Sarah is saying the same thing.

Charlie - posted on 03/10/2011

I feel I was uneducated when I approached my partner in my first pregnancy and said we had to have our son circumcised , I too believed all the things the pro circ camp use as reasoning to have RIC performed it wasn't until he questioned me and how much I ACTUALLY knew that I researched it and found myself appaulled I even entertained the thought and it opened my eyes up to other aspects , I had never even thought about the ethics of performing cosmetic sugery on a baby ( I had no idea it was considered cosmetic ) and how it breaches human rights laws as well as the gross sexism against boys in reguards to protection of the genital integrity where the only difference in male and female circ is that girls lose far less specialized tissue in the process than our sons and yet THEY are protected , It opened my eyes to just how outdated the supposed benefits were ........ was I un educated when I said " we are getting our son circumcised " In my opinion , absolutely .

Minnie - posted on 03/10/2011

I'm seeing a disconnect here- people are saying that RIC shouldn't be made illegal because it's just another law getting in the way of parents' rights- and that parents know what is best for their children.

And those same people are saying that if it DOES become illegal 'all of a sudden' that people will resort to having circumcisions done out of the hospital without a medical professional.

So- which is it? Do parents know what is best or do they not? If they DO know what is best, and RIC becomes illegal, then they're not going to be flocking to some dude's basement to have it done. If they DON'T know what is best, then yes, that's what we have laws for- and consequences when those laws are broken. To protect those children.

Becky - posted on 03/10/2011

I was uneducated. It was the doctor who was going to do the circumcision who actually educated me into changing my mind about having it done!
Making RIC illegal may not completely eliminate unnecessary circumcisions, but it would definitely reduce them by a lot. I know that we would not have even considered it for a second had it been illegal. No way am I going to allow some hack in a basement "clinic" to touch my children! I would guess that most parents would feel the same way!
Tara, that article you posted is seriously disturbing! Ummm, if anyone else did that, wouldn't it be considered sexual abuse?!
My mom was told by her doctor 30 years ago, when my brother was born, that circumcision was barbaric and he hoped she wasn't going to circumcise him. And this was in small-town Manitoba!

Jodi - posted on 03/10/2011

I had my son circed. About 14 years ago. I did it because I was uneducated :P I'm happy to admit that.



Honestly, I knew very little about it, and wasn't even aware it was a debatable issue. Everyone I knew was circed. My son's father wanted him done. I didn't know much about it, I figured his dad has a circed penis, so he must know what he is talking about, and he wouldn't do anything to harm his son.......



Do I feel guilty? No. If my son has anything to say about it when he is older, I am sure he will understand. Would I do it if I had the choice today? No, because now I know better.

Tara - posted on 03/10/2011

Audrey a lot of us assume that a lot of you (general pro-circ you implied) must have been uneducated about all the possible negatives of RIC otherwise, in our opinion why else would someone risk their babies life? Or risk having their penis accidentally amputated along with the foreskin? Or risk the numerous possible infections and post operative complications etc. etc.?
See, we think that educated people, in this case, people who know all of the aforementioned risks would not choose to take them. Therefore by the powers of deduction we assume you (again general you implied) must have been lacking proper, thorough information prior to having your son's foreskin needlessly removed.
Disclaimer:
This does not include any medically indicated circumcisions.

Audrey - posted on 03/10/2011

im so sick of all you anti-circ people calling anyone who had their son circd un-educated! mind your own business!

Georgia - posted on 03/10/2011

FGM and RIC is the exact same thing. The only difference is one is a little girl, the other a boy. I think making RIC illegal, like FGM would stop a lot of people from doing it, but more than that it would stop doctors from performing the procedure. I agree there has to be lots of education for parents (and doctors), but making the procedure illegal would drastically reduce the numbers. It would also serve to make the rights of baby boys equal to baby girls.

Kathy - posted on 03/10/2011

Definitely, there has to be lots of education, but making this barbaric procedure illegal is the way to go, same as FGM, another barbaric procedure, is illegal.

Rosie - posted on 03/10/2011

i think the prioblem with that loureen is the attitude many people, especially in america, have towards it. we don't feel the same way here about FGM as we do RIC. it's not in the same league, and i don't think suddenly making it illegal is going to change that mindset.

Jodi - posted on 03/10/2011

No, Loureen, you have a great point there too. Although I am pretty sure FGM is still happening illegally too. I think the thought of it being done illegally makes my stomach churn. But then, so does legal circumcision. I just think that simply making it illegal is not a solution. If they are going to make it illegal, they are OBLIGATED to then establish education programs to ensure people understand WHY it is illegal, and programs to discourage people from seeking other ways to get it done. You can'[t just put a law in place and hope everyone will follow it without mass education.



I mean, look at the new car seat laws. They brought those in here last year. I see my daughter's friends sitting in the front seat without a booster, passenger side airbag and all, ALL the time, and she is only 6. It is illegal, but people either don't know or don't care. i don't remember seeing it advertised at all, or hearing it on the radio. The only thing I saw was a pamphlet that was sent out ONCE with the school newsletter. That's it. Making it illegal has not worked. Education WILL work. Although I do wonder how much it really is enforced too.....

Sarah - posted on 03/10/2011

Patricia - the only thing that prevents std's is a condom or abstinence

Charlie - posted on 03/10/2011

So for those who aren't comfortable with making RIC illegal would you also want FGM to be legal for the same reasons ?

Patricia - posted on 03/09/2011

my son who is now 9 had to be done when he was almost 2and a hlf due to strangulation of the penis he literaaly couldn't wee he penis would swell up to be almost transparent and he cold only wee a little bit so he had to be done so when i had my other 2 little boys as much as i hated putting them through that i think it definately benifits them in the long run some doctors say it also helps with sexually transmitted diseases when they are adults make sense to me until i had my first son with this problem i thought it was up to the individual my mother had 2 of her sons done and 2 sons which she didn'tr do don't know why she wouldn't say so i think it is no body elses business but the parents

Charity - posted on 03/09/2011

We chose not to circumcise our baby. I wanted to because it was what I grew up understanding as normal. But my husband said it should be our son's choice when he is old enough to make that choice. So I honored my husband's decision. I don't believe it's right to take that decision away from the parent. But I also don't understand why people think it's ok to take a baby's life while it's still in the whom. I believe that God knows us before we were ever thought of and that He has a plan for each of our lives. There are no accidents in God's eyes. So why do we have the right to change our baby's body just because society says it's normal? It's one thing to do it for religious reasons. But it's a different subject altogether when we start talking about "cosmetic" reasons. But this is the human condition. Pick and choose what rules we want according to what everyone else says right now. And then in 10 or 20 years change the rules again because someone like Tom Cruise says it's not okay anymore.

Sarah - posted on 03/09/2011

making circ illegal, would no doubt make people turn to backyard doctors, which would cause infant death. Keeping it legal and putting up prices and taking the routine thing away isn't ENOUGH prevention.
I guess it's hard to say.
If it was my decision i would start by educating with HUGE advertising campaigns, then i would stop the hospitals from doing it at birth, then i would minimize the amount of clinics that could perform them and maybe make doctors do an additional (expensive) course to be able to circumcise which would decrease the number of docs circumcising, After years of educating and reducing as much as possible, i would make a law for the next generation of kids. That way most dads would be intact and therefore want their kids intact so there's no real uproar when the law is introduced :D

Kaleigh - posted on 03/09/2011

yeah they aren't covered here at all and are very expensive, people still have it done though but there has definately been a recent decline from what I'm hearing because of the cost. I agree with you there Kathy backyard anything is a creepy concept I know if circumcision was illegal I wouldn't go some round a bout way to get it done but thats me personally.

Jodi - posted on 03/09/2011

I see your point Kathy. I guess I am just on the fence about it. I see it as a similar argument to the abortion debate in that I'd hate to see us go back to the days where stupid people would still perform the operations illegally. I don't believe it is a cop-out with the abortion debate, so I also can't see it as a cop out in the circumcision debate. Don't get me wrong, I don't think boys should be circumcised at all, I guess I just can't see that straight up making it illegal is going to solve that without creating another problem.

Kathy - posted on 03/09/2011

No, I'm not particularly okay with backyard circumcisions, just as I'm not particularly comfortable with backyard FGM. Just as I'm not particularly comfortable with backyard abortions, just as I'm not comfortable with backyard tattoos etc...IMO, it's a copout to say circumcisions would become backyard operations if they were illegal. It's being "softly softly" because it's too hard to make a stand. You could say the same thing if the operation were less expensive (covered by insurance.)
It's a barbaric procedure and should be made illegal.

Krista - posted on 03/09/2011

I think it's crazy that insurance in the US covers it! Isn't that where insurance covers close to nothing, and you have to pay out of your pocket for almost everything? Even redneck Alberta doesn't cover it, and in my city of 30,000, only 2 doctors will perform circumcisions. I think they're kept pretty busy though, because everyone I talk to thinks it's a no-brainer to get your son circumcised.

Jodi - posted on 03/09/2011

Krista has a good point too, about it being covered by insurance. If it wasn't covered, a lot less people would be doing it.

Kathy, by saying you think it should be illegal, you are okay with people taking circumcision into the backyard? Because that is exactly what would happen. And I really do believe more babies will die as a result.

Sarah - posted on 03/09/2011

im surprised insurance covers that!!
wow!
it wouldnt take much convincing to stop insurance companies covering it would it? The more money the company saves, the better for them right?

Sarah - posted on 03/09/2011

i totally agree with you Jodi!
If making it illegal prevented deaths like it should i'd be all for it, but its more likely to cause more problems than it worth.
I think thats a great idea, make it really difficult to have it done! :) Same thing for abortions!
Like here, only 15% of boys are circ'd because there are so few clinics doing it, but even then its not that hard to do it. If there were copious amounts of paperwork that would be wonderful! :D

Krista - posted on 03/09/2011

I think the only way we'll see the U.S. rates decrease by a LOT, is if insurance companies stop covering the procedure.

You're so determined to have your baby boy circ'd? Fine. Pony up, folks. I think we'd soon see an awful lot of people miraculously lose their determination to circumcise.

The question is, how to get insurance companies to stop covering it?

Kathy - posted on 03/09/2011

I'm very comfortable with making it illegal in the same way that female genital mutilation is illegal.

Jodi - posted on 03/09/2011

I agree with you Sarah, that we need to focus on education, and also stop doint it routinely (in other words, stop assuming everyone will have it done, and assume no-one will unless they ask). Making it illegal will turn it into the equivalent of making abortions illegal. Sure, if abortion were illegal, it would stop some people from getting it done, but there would still be people who would do it and they would be forced underground or forced to do it themselves. Same with circumcision. I am not sure that making it illegal will save any babies because some people will refuse to comply with the law based on their own beliefs, and we end up with more dead baby boys, whereas a clean, legal circumcision will prevent that.

Maybe make it like vaccines. With vaccines, if you opt out, you have to jump through hoops, sign forms saying why, and all sorts of things. This is more likely to discourage all but the extreme pro-circs from going anywhere near the procedure because it's just too much hassle. So if we have a process whereby you have to ask first, then you have to attend an education class, then you have to sign acknowledging the risks, AND you have to outline your reasons for doing it on a stat. dec. That's a lot of hoops to go through.

I guess I'm just not comfortable with making it illegal because I think it could be detrimental to many boys with parents who are determined to have it done.

Sarah - posted on 03/09/2011

Laura, i'd like to agree with you that education would stop it, but the reality is, if it were to become illegal there would still be idiot parents who circ'd because it looks good despite the risks. Education would probably be more helpful than making it illegal though :)

Isobel - posted on 03/09/2011

I don't know why you think people would STILL continue to do it...in most places all they needed to do was stop recommending it and people stopped doing it.

America really is the only place left that circumcises the majority of boys...and I REALLY don't understand why you think it's OK to ban Female Circ and not Male.

Sarah - posted on 03/09/2011

I think it's totally reasonable to charge someone who performed an ILLEGAL circumcision.
It's like back when abortion was illegal, underground abortions, were painful, and extremely dangerous, just as illegal circumcision would most likely be.
I'm sure underground doctors performing 'backyard' abortions definitely served jail time if they were caught! There's not much difference. An illegal medical procedure is serious shit, even if it's just a snip!

Isobel - posted on 03/09/2011

exactly

Charlie - posted on 03/09/2011

I don't understand how it is so hard to fathom a parent or doctor being charged or jailed if they performed illegal circumcision , I mean is it alarming also that the very same can happen RIGHT NOW if they did it to a gril ?

Rosie - posted on 03/09/2011

BAN THE CORNFLAKES!!!!!

Isobel - posted on 03/09/2011

Routine circumcision as a preventative or cure for masturbation was proposed in Victorian times in America. Masturbation was thought to be the cause of a number of diseases. The procedure of routine circumcision became commonplace between 1870 and 1920, and it consequently spread to all the English-speaking countries (England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). None of these countries now circumcise the majority of their male children, a distinction reserved today for the United States (in the UK, in fact, nonreligious circumcision has virtually ceased). Yet, there are still those who promote this social surgery, long after the masturbation hysteria of the past century has subsided.



not my words. This is from a website about Dr. Kellogg...yes, the same guy who made corn flakes...and yes, they were supposed to curb masturbation too :)

Georgia - posted on 03/09/2011

O.M.G. Tara, I can't even believe that would be considered an acceptable practice. But then, I get what that rabbi is saying... Maybe those boys all visited the same hooker and caught the Herpes beforehand.

I'm actually very interested in the Jewish perspective. From what I've read, originally a circumcision was simply a nick in the foreskin (so that they could be identified by god, I believe). So where and why did it turn into the "take it all off"?

And Kati... I can't believe I read the whole thing! :-) My brain has partially liquified as a result of trying to do the Maths first thing in the morning.

Rosie - posted on 03/09/2011

yeah i saw that recently and about puked.

Tara - posted on 03/09/2011

regarding circumcision by orthodox jews whose Rabbi still practices "oral suction" after removal of the foreskin.



By ANDY NEWMAN

Published: August 26, 2005



A circumcision ritual practiced by some Orthodox Jews has alarmed city health officials, who say it may have led to three cases of herpes - one of them fatal - in infants. But after months of meetings with Orthodox leaders, city officials have been unable to persuade them to abandon the practice.



The city's intervention has angered many Orthodox leaders, and the issue has left the city struggling to balance its mandate to protect public health with the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.



"This is a very delicate area, so to speak," said Health Commissioner Thomas R. Frieden.



The practice is known as oral suction, or in Hebrew, metzitzah b'peh: after removing the foreskin of the penis, the practitioner, or mohel, sucks the blood from the wound to clean it.



It became a health issue after a boy in Staten Island and twins in Brooklyn, circumcised by the same mohel in 2003 and 2004, contracted Type-1 herpes. Most adults carry the disease, which causes the common cold sore, but it can be life-threatening for infants. One of the twins died.



Since February, the mohel, Rabbi Yitzchok Fischer, 57, has been under court order not to perform the ritual in New York City while the health department is investigating whether he spread the infection to the infants.



Pressure from Orthodox leaders on the issue led Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and health officials to meet with them on Aug. 11. The mayor's comments on his radio program the next day seemed meant to soothe all parties and not upset a group that can be a formidable voting bloc: "We're going to do a study, and make sure that everybody is safe and at the same time, it is not the government's business to tell people how to practice their religion."



The health department, after the meeting, reiterated that it did not intend to ban or regulate oral suction. But Dr. Frieden has said that the city is taking this approach partly because any broad rule would be virtually unenforceable. Circumcision generally takes place in private homes.



Dr. Frieden said the department regarded herpes transmission via oral suction as "somewhat inevitable to occur as long as this practice continues, if at a very low rate."



The use of suction to stop bleeding dates back centuries and is mentioned in the Talmud. The safety of direct oral contact has been questioned since the 19th century, and many Orthodox and nearly all non-Orthodox Jews have abandoned it. Dr. Frieden said he hoped the rabbis would voluntarily switch to suctioning the blood through a tube, an alternative endorsed by the Rabbinical Council of America, the largest group of Orthodox rabbis.



But the most traditionalist groups, including many Hasidic sects in New York, consider oral suction integral to God's covenant with the Jews requiring circumcision, and they have no intention of stopping.



"The Orthodox Jewish community will continue the practice that has been practiced for over 5,000 years," said Rabbi David Niederman of the United Jewish Organization in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, after the meeting with the mayor. "We do not change. And we will not change."



David Zwiebel, executive vice president of Agudath Israel, an umbrella organization of Orthodox Jews, said that metzitzah b'peh is probably performed more than 2,000 times a year in New York City.



The potential risks of oral suction, however, are not confined to Orthodox communities. Dr. Frieden said in March that the health department had fielded several calls from panicked non-Orthodox parents who had hired Hasidic mohels unaware of what their services entailed.



Defenders of oral suction say there is no proof that it spreads herpes at all. They say that mohels use antiseptic mouthwash before performing oral suction, and that the known incidence of herpes among infants who have undergone it is minuscule. (The city's health department recorded cases in 1988 and 1998, though doctors in New York, as in most states, are not required to report neonatal herpes.)



Dr. Kenneth I. Glassberg, past president of the New York section of the American Urological Association and director of pediatric urology at Morgan Stanley Children's Hospital of New York-Presbyterian, said that while he found oral suction "personally displeasing," he did not recommend that rabbis stop using it.



"If I knew something caused a problem from a medical point of view," said Dr. Glassberg, whose private practice includes many Hasidic families, "I would recommend against it."



But Rabbi Moshe Tendler, a microbiologist and professor of Talmud and medical ethics at Yeshiva University, said that metzitzah b'peh violates Jewish law.



"The rule that's above all rules in the Torah is that you cannot expose or accept a risk to health unless there is true justification for it," said Dr. Tendler, co-author of a 2004 article in the journal Pediatrics that said direct contact posed a serious risk of infection.



"Now there have been several cases of herpes in the metro area," he said. "Whether it can be directly associated with this mohel nobody knows. All we're talking about now is presumptive evidence, and on that alone it would be improper according to Jewish law to do oral suction."



The inconsistent treatment of Rabbi Fischer himself indicates the confusion metzitzah b'peh has sown among health authorities, who typically regulate circumcisions by doctors but not religious practitioners.



In Rockland County, where Rabbi Fischer lives in the Hasidic community of Monsey, he has been barred from performing oral suction. But the state health department retracted a request it had made to Rabbi Fischer to stop the practice. And in New Jersey, where Rabbi Fischer has done some of his 12,000 circumcisions, the health authorities have been silent.



Rabbi Fischer's lawyer, Mark J. Kurzmann, said that absent conclusive proof that the rabbi had spread herpes, he should be allowed to continue the practice. Rabbi Fischer said through Mr. Kurzmann that the twin who died and the Staten Island boy both had herpes-like rashes before they were circumcised and were seen by a pediatrician who approved their circumcision. The health department declined to comment on its investigation.



Please tell me there is no one here who would approve of this practice on little baby boys?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregi...

Tara - posted on 03/09/2011

The risks of infant death due to unnecessary circumcision are too many even if it is just one child every year.
The incidence of death due to leaving a penis intact are nil.
No baby has died from having an intact penis. Possibly somewhere some baby had an infection under the foreskin, likely due to someone pulling it back too early, and say that childs parents didn't take him or couldn't get medical help and so he died, but not from an infection, from lack of medical care to treat an infection.
But honestly no baby has died because he had a foreskin, but babies have died because theirs was surgically removed resulting in any number of things that can cause death in a new baby such as blood loss, infection, hemorrhage, heart attack etc.
I posted a link to a page with stories of documented cases where the babies died because they were circ'd.
Any death is too many, why choose to take that risk, even as small as it may be, why? What if your baby became a statistic because of that choice?
So if someone knows the risk of death is there, and choose to take that risk, is that not irresponsible?
I know that there is always a chance I could get into a car accident or a boating accident (I work on an island) even though the risk is small, I still make them wear a PFD and a seat belt. We've never been in an accident and many people live their whole lives never being in one, but why take that risk when I know what the outcome could be?

Michele - posted on 03/09/2011

Deaths from not circumsizing? I would need to know more about this to believe it.

Rosie - posted on 03/09/2011

yes really??....it's a valid position considering there are deaths from not circumcising as well....

Krista - posted on 03/09/2011

Really? You want to know if the "benefits" outweigh the risks? Even if no one had ever died in the history of circumcision, I still wouldn't have my son circ'd. I wasn't even thinking about death as a possibility...just the needlessness of having it done! I won't repeat all the reasons everyone else has already posted...I'm just surprised, with all those other reasons, that the death rate would be the deciding factor for someone.

Rosie - posted on 03/09/2011

i agree there have been deaths krista, but most liekly not anywhere near the number reported. i wish we could get an accurate number so it could be known whether or not the benefits outweigh the risks.