Circumcision ban, agree or disagree

Janice - posted on 03/19/2012

No doctors near me pierce ears, but I have heard of it. I think if it was not banned but also not covered by medical insurance (except for actual medical necessity) than it would force parents to evaluate why they do this procedure. Most people I know never even thought twice about circumcision and had it done, not because of a strong personal belief but rather "that's just what you do."

Paula - posted on 03/18/2012

I honestly don't know what to say to that tbh Sherri. I get that it's cultural. It's just really alien to me and seems so unnecessary.

Sherri - posted on 03/18/2012

Paula many doctors here in US do pierce babies ears.

Paula - posted on 03/18/2012

The reason I said that the line should be drawn with religion is because people who circ for religious reasons do so because of deep, indoctrinated faith and almost certainly WOULD try to circumvent a ban. Those who do it for cosmetic reasons should be more likely to adhere to a ban because they are not biased by religion and are thus more likely not to go to extreme measures. That's why the law is as it is here.



If you allow, what is in my mind, unnecessary surgery on a baby then where do you end it? Should doctors have to pierce babies ears next because it's a part of whatever culture the family has? These two issues aren't as seperate as they might see because, to me, they are both done for vanity reasons only.



Like I said above, you have to draw the line. Drawing it with religion seems the best place because those who follow religion do so through fervent beliefs that cannot be changed. Those who do it through cosmetic reasons only do it because everyone else does. It's purely cultural and can be changed.

Mother - posted on 03/18/2012

"Doctor's performing a procedure for fear of what might happen if they don't is ludicrous. "



I never said that. I think it should be left as an option to parents regardless. I don't support the ban. I merely explained what concerns another member had, the ramifications of a ban could be devastating.



ETA:: "I don't think that it should be completely banned but definately banned for reasons that aren't religious or medical."



-- this could cause problems all on its own. why is one person's religious beliefs more important then anothers philosophical viewpoint??

Paula - posted on 03/18/2012

I agree this is likely in religious scenarios and that i why it can be requested for religious reasons. Better a doctor than a Rabbi. But that's where the line is drawn here in the UK and I support that 100%



If there does turn out to be a ban though, anyone who wants to do it to a baby purely for cosmetic reasons and chooses to go down the back-alley route then they should be brought up on charges. Doctor's performing a procedure for fear of what might happen if they don't is ludicrous.



I don't think that it should be completely banned but definately banned for reasons that aren't religious or medical.

Mother - posted on 03/18/2012

Ok, but at least it is still an option is what I was getting at. I think this is how it should be. I don't think any stipulations should be put on it but a charge should be implemented.



Banning it shouldn't even be a question. someone else brought up the very valid reason of....people may try going underground to get it done and causing more harm then good. *yikes*

Paula - posted on 03/18/2012

No it's not offered. A parent needs to request it and it will only be done for religious reasons if a parent requests it. Also there will be a £250b charge (All healthcare is normally free in the UK except if procedures aren't done for medical reasons)



If there is a medical need once baby is born it will be offered for free on the NHS by doctors but not for cosmetoc reasons.

Mother - posted on 03/18/2012

But it is still offered right?!?! I just don't think there should be a ban on it.

Paula - posted on 03/15/2012

We live in Scotland and it's simply not the done thing. Hospitals will not offer it to newborns unless there is a religious or medical reason.



I believe that, unless the foreskin causes problems like becoming dry and cracked, that it's a bit silly to cut off a part of the genetalia.



As far as hygene goes? A foreskin is washed just as easily as any other part of the body and i have never had any problems with men with foreskin smelling in any way. We teach our boys to clean them as with any other body part.



My husband was circ'd last year through medical reasons and he does say that has heightened sensitivity! But I don't see too many babies needing to care much about that.

Janice - posted on 03/14/2012

While I am on the anti-circ. side, I definitely agree with Jenna. I think most men are still just fine sexually. However, some men are not. Circumcising can cause sexual issues, its rare but not impossible.

*Fluffy Bunnies - posted on 03/13/2012

Kelsey, have you met a boy? They're constantly touching themselves (and seem to enjoy it). I doubt teaching a boy to simply pull back, wash, release is hard especially since he's already playing with it constantly. Until the penis retracts on it's own (usually around 3) you do nothing to it. That's pretty easy.

*Fluffy Bunnies - posted on 03/13/2012

Round and round we go...lol

Kelsey - posted on 03/13/2012

the thing is if you chooise to not have your child circumsized you have to teach them to take extra care of that area so it does not get infected. i have already agreed with my husband that if we have boys they will be circumsized for sure.

Sherri - posted on 03/13/2012

I agree Jenna.

Jenna - posted on 03/13/2012

I think one of the weakest arguments against circumcision is the supposed sexual enjoyment for the man. Has a study actually been done where a bunch of uncircumcised men reported their sexual experiences and then got circumcised and then reported their sexual experiences? If no such study has been done, there is no way to tell whether a man has a better experienced uncircumcised or circumcised. The only people that could tell you it's better or worse is someone who has experienced both.

Nelly - posted on 03/13/2012

I personally think it should be left up to the child unless it's for medical reasons

Johnny - posted on 03/11/2012

I am so confused, I thought this was a circumcision debate, not a vaccine debate.

Mother - posted on 03/11/2012

Again Jody and Krista, I'm just being an ass. As I said last night I like to play devils advocate. I think most things are a choice. As parents, we have to make choices FOR our children. Those decisions will be based on our own life experiences that mold our thinking. Saying, something rarely happens means nothing to the person IT DID happen to.



Just sayin'



I still doubt I'd ever circumcise but I also don't think I have the right to push my ideals onto someone else. I've not walked a mile in their shoes.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/11/2012

Also it has NEVER been proven that vaccines cause anything. It HAS been proven that circumcision can. PERIOD.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/11/2012

Odds of getting the disease are little because MOST vaccinate! If we all stopped you would see a huge increase in disease again. Your child is protected because WE vaccinate and keep the disease at bay..



All of us that have vaccinated see good, not evil in it, otherwise we would NOT do it. We all love our children and we all want the best for them. We vaccinate because we know how devastating it would be for them to get disease.



Seriously, you are never going to change anyone's views on vaccinating. It's a lost cause. It is a serious thing and it needs to be done to protect our children and our selves.

Mother - posted on 03/11/2012

"And I can see why he'd feel that way, but a) if it was too sore to even touch, then his parents SHOULD have brought him to the doctor long before then, and b) how does he know that same problem will happen to his boys? It might not, and he'll have put them through all that for nothing." --Oh they did Krista. His infections were reoccurring. Just get one cleared up and another would appear.



"Of every 1,000 boys who are circumcised:



About 10 babies may need to have the circumcision done again because of a poor result. "

-- and of every vaccination, you have to have future needles over and over to keep immunity. I mean why get it done if the odds of them getting the disease is so little. OR better, why get it done when they can't even guarantee immunity??

Sarah - posted on 03/10/2012

Just IMO - circumcising an infant just because he MAY develop an infection is a ridiculous argument. By this rationale, EVERY child at birth should undergo surgery to remove their tonsils, adenoids, appendix, toenails, fingernails, toothbuds, etc. because at some point in their life any of those may become infected.



As a pediatric nurse (for 6 years), I have seen only 2 children who have medically required a circumcision past infancy (one was 4, the other 15). When I was in adult care, I saw only 1. It is not that common for it to be required medically, usually if only they have had repeated infections.



In my final year of nursing school, a baby in our community DIED following a circumcision (he bled to death). Why? Because they wanted him to look like Daddy? Really, people aren't meant to look like each other. Some are tall, some are short, some are thin, some are heavy, we're white, brown, black, and yellow. My hubby is, my son isn't. He doesn't need to look like his Dad, no one is going to sit there and compare their genitals, that would just be weird!

Johnny - posted on 03/10/2012

According to the Canadian Paediatric Society:



Of every 1,000 boys who are circumcised:



About 10 babies may need to have the circumcision done again because of a poor result.



Of every 1,000 boys who are not circumcised:



10 will have a circumcision later in life for medical reasons



So it would appear that your son's chances of having to have a circumcision done later is the same if you do or don't circumcise. At least those who don't are only having to go through it once.

Krista - posted on 03/10/2012

Thats the thing. My friend never developed normally as far as sexual. He said he rarely masturbated because it was so sore to even touch. He rarely had girlfriends for the same reason. He fixed the issue at 26 and he's never had a single problem since. He went on to circumcise all 3 of his boys.



And I can see why he'd feel that way, but a) if it was too sore to even touch, then his parents SHOULD have brought him to the doctor long before then, and b) how does he know that same problem will happen to his boys? It might not, and he'll have put them through all that for nothing.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/10/2012

I don't think the sex is any different. It is all about how they use it, not what they have. I have participated with both, nope, no difference. Some men that are uncircumcised are not able to go for as long because it is more sensitive, other's have figured that downfall out and outsmarted that issue. Some men that are circumcised just suck in bed anyway. LOL

Mother - posted on 03/10/2012

And....not to be inappropriate, this isn't something I could tell my husband. Sex with uncircumcised men is AWESOME!!!!!!!

Mother - posted on 03/10/2012

Absolutely Jodi, I completely agree. I just like playing devils advocate. I don't think parents make these decisions lightly or without a valid reason. You guys have made some compelling arguments, which could possibly make me fight for not circumcising, if we had a boy. I have just heard viable reasons on both sides and so figured if the decision came....because I was undecided, figured my husband would be a better one to make the decision. He would circumcise though.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/10/2012

It is a much more uncommon practice to circumcise. You barely hear of it in the Maritimes and have rarely if ever heard of it in NFLD. Less and less doctor's are willing to do it for no good reason.



My husband is fine, he still has all skin intact. My boy does too. I was not willing to put him through the discomfort as a brand new baby (or at any age) of being circumcised. Or having a serious complication from it, infection from circumcision is not exactly that uncommon. IMO, it is cruel.



I however, don't have a strong opinion if other's do it. I for one, with all the research I did when I found out my son was a boy (during pregnancy), know that it is not required and is less advocated in the present time. It is prone to infection and I don't want my boy's wee wee infected because of something I agreed to!



And they no longer remove tonsils unless there is an issue with them over and over again. My daughter had her adenoids taken out and they would not touch her tonsils. Now, 15 years ago, yes, they would've taken them all..

Jodi - posted on 03/10/2012

I can see why, if you've had a bad personal experience, you would make decisions based on that, I really can. But when we are looking at it in the big picture, the answers would probably be different.

Mother - posted on 03/10/2012

At one time they thought they should!! LOL



No, I don't think so.

Jodi - posted on 03/10/2012

"it doesn't have to mean death. Even just discomfort."



So on that basis, should we remove tonsils at birth too?

Mother - posted on 03/10/2012

"They can wait until the male becomes sexually active and decides that he wants that done, or they can wait until (IF!) a problem actually happens. There is no need whatsoever to circumcise to prevent a problem that may or may not even occur. "



Thats the thing. My friend never developed normally as far as sexual. He said he rarely masturbated because it was so sore to even touch. He rarely had girlfriends for the same reason. He fixed the issue at 26 and he's never had a single problem since. He went on to circumcise all 3 of his boys.

Mother - posted on 03/10/2012

"The risk of death by not circumcising is zero." -- it doesn't have to mean death. Even just discomfort. My friend Steve had a horrid experience. After hearing his story I could never in good conscience tell him he was being ridiculous. We don't vaccinate because of vaccine reactions....a rare thing right?? But it was my experience. We are all shaped by our own life experiences.

Mother - posted on 03/10/2012

Yes, I'm an ass. It is an extreme example but a valid one. As a parent we have to make certain decisions FOR our children that are based on our own life experiences....I believe circumcision is one of those things. I personally, would not circumcise but I would never tell a parent they couldn't or shouldn't. They are trying to make life easier....not mutilate them, as I've seen so many people say.

Jodi - posted on 03/10/2012

Oh, I understand that, BUT the risk of death is much less than the risk of the disease. And some of the diseases covered by vaccines are highly contagious - to the point where it is rare that the child won't catch the disease at some point when they are infants or toddlers (assuming the scenario where no child is circumcised, no child is vaccinated, until they are adults). So their chances of dying from the disease, if no child was ever vaccinated, are extremely high, and therefore their chances of death are higher than if they had the vaccine.



The risk of death by not circumcising is zero.

Mother - posted on 03/10/2012

An infant can DIE being vaccinated.



It is a choice. One every parent has to weigh out and assess.

Jodi - posted on 03/10/2012

Many vaccines do mean you have full immmunity (at least until you are due for a booster). Other vaccines, you may not have full immunity, but it does lessen the impact of the disease, milder symptoms, less likely to be life threatening.



The difference here is that an infant can DIE if not vaccinated. But a child is not going to die because they weren't circumcised. And if there are medical reasons, it is quite simple to rectify that as it occurs.

Mother - posted on 03/10/2012

"Vaccines are different, in that if you wait until the problem has occurred, it's too late."



Hardly. Vaccines do not mean you have immunity. So why get an un-necessary procedure done if it may not even help or even happen.

Krista - posted on 03/10/2012

Not necessarily, Ma B. My husband had his for medical reasons when he was a toddler. But he is firmly of the opinion that routine infant circumcision is mutilation and should be illegal.



Another thing to squash the vaccines/circumcision comparison: circumcisions can wait. They can wait until the male becomes sexually active and decides that he wants that done, or they can wait until (IF!) a problem actually happens. There is no need whatsoever to circumcise to prevent a problem that may or may not even occur. Vaccines are different, in that if you wait until the problem has occurred, it's too late.

Jodi - posted on 03/10/2012

But they are men when they need it for medical reasons. And it is few and far between.



And if everyone forgoes the vaccines, then the disease becomes a bigger risk than the vaccines ever were. Children would be very much at risk when they are only infants if we waited until they were adults to have them.



Sorry, you are not comparing apples with apples.

Mother - posted on 03/10/2012

I disagree. I think the men who have had circumcision for medical reasons would not agree with that statement either.



Vaccines do not give 100% immunity and in some cases no immunity at all. There are many risks associated with vaccines and should one of those risks occur, is irreversible as well......

Jodi - posted on 03/10/2012

"So, I guess vaccines shouldn't be allowed either then. The child should be able to grow up and decide on that as well. "



Actually, no, I will disagree with that on the grounds that there is no beneficial reason to circumcise a child, there are beneficial reasons to vaccinate a child. It's not the same argument.

Mother - posted on 03/10/2012

That's an interesting take on things Sally. If the choice was left to me, I probably wouldn't circumcise but I do think it is a choice. So, I guess vaccines shouldn't be allowed either then. The child should be able to grow up and decide on that as well.

Sally - posted on 03/10/2012

nobody will every convince me that its the parents right to mess with a babies body with out medical reasons. Wheres the babies right to grow up intact and make his own choice. If you were talking co-sleeping,breast or bottle etc yes the parent has the right to choose. When it comes to changeing a babies body,no. Its wrong

Tabitha - posted on 03/10/2012

And i have to point out that there is just as much incidence of infections and other complications wether circumcised or un-circumcised.

Tabitha - posted on 03/10/2012

I agree that it is an individual choice for each parent to decide that themselves. Stay out of peoples family decisions. It's none of our buisness wether it is done or not done no matter the reason.

Janice - posted on 03/09/2012

No time to read other posts but here is my 2 cents.



I wish there was a ban because there is no medical reason to do it. I was on the fence while pregnant with my son. Hubby is and my mom is Jewish and part of me does think it looks weird because its just not the norm I've come to know. But I also know there is zero medical reason to do it. So I decided to tell my hubby it was his choice. Somewhere around 38 weeks I suddenly decided I didn't want it done, but Hubby and I fought most of the pregnancy and we were finally in a good spot again so I didnt say anything.



When the doctors asked if Gavin was to be circumcised, I very reluctantly said yes. They could tell I was unsure so they wrote unsure and didnt do it the first day. They asked again because I was so shaky over it. I told them yes, but then cried when they took him. I wish I had realized I felt strongly about it.



So if there was a ban I would have gotten what I know is right instead of being pressured into having my son circumcised.



ETA: I really hope that if one day we have a 3d its a girl!

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/07/2012

I think it is the parents decision but we did not circumcise. My husband is not circumcised. I don't see any reason to. Actually it is becoming less of an active thing. Especially in the Maritimes and NFLD. Barely anyone does it out here.



My friend in AB got her son done. She told me if she had known how badly he would cry, he would have never done it. This IS a big reason I would not do it.



Again, it should be left up to the parents. I see neither harm or good out of doing it or not, really. I haven't really researched it a whole lot though, since I knew we weren't going that route.



The only thing I have heard, that is current (yes, it use to be a health thing. It kept infections away - not anymore from the little I have read). Is that when they become sexually active, later in life, those that have been circumcised have less feeling during sex, therefore allowing for them to keep an erection longer... Meh. Nothing I would think about when having a brand new baby boy. ;) There wife might though! LOL

Rebecca - posted on 03/06/2012

100% for a ban. It is unnecessary and elective. Absent a compelling and immediate medical indication (something that MIGHT happen when a boy is 25 or 80 is totally irrelevant), the decision regarding whether or not a person's foreskin should be removed should be made by the person with the foreskin.



No one is "taking away people's rights and religious freedoms" -- you don't have a right to mutilate someone else's body based on your religion or your right to freedom. Your freedom to swing your arm ends at my nose; the same would apply for a little boy's foreskin.