Circumcision ban, agree or disagree

Sally - posted on 03/03/2012

Jodi, its the same in the uk . If someone wants for what ever mis-guided reason they have to pay. I really have a hard time why anyone would do this to a baby without it being needed medical reasons . My biggest problem is with people who consider it cleaner or prettier. Its a load of b.....ks in my opinion. Girls have more layers, most as they get older will have discharge etc , so why are they not lobing bits of the girl of to keep her clean. The last time i looked a girl had 1 more hole than boys where stuff could go. Its stupid. Yes parents have the right over dental etc but thats not craving your child up. You have no rights to change a childs body unless there is a medical reason.

Jodi - posted on 03/03/2012

We never even get asked here.

Minnie - posted on 03/03/2012

I agree Jodi, it simply does not compute. When I went with my midwife I had to sign a statement that I -would NOT- circumcise if my child had been a boy.

Minnie - posted on 03/03/2012

Yeh, I got that -currently- it is a parent's right to make that decision, Sherri. But my question to you was why do you -think- it's your right?



We're debating on whether or not it SHOULD be a right, not whether or not it currently is.



But your answer is always "just because I can."

Jodi - posted on 03/03/2012

Jesus, really? He was circumcised before he was 24 hours old? And you were asked at your first OB visit? Wow......

Krista - posted on 03/03/2012

They don't require both parents' signatures on the paperwork (if both parents are present)? That's insane. So technically, while you were out in surgery, if you DIDN'T want your son circumcised, your husband could have still signed all of those papers and had it done without so much as a by-your-leave.



Cripes, no wonder doctors have to buy so much malpractice insurance, if this is how they run things in the U.S.



Oh, and for the record, nobody ever asked us if we wanted Sam circumcised. It's just not done here anymore. And it never even occurred to us to do it, as we're both adamantly against routine infant circumcision. My husband feels strongly that it's mutilation, as do I.



If I'd wanted it done, I would have had to hunt down a doctor who does it and pay out-of-pocket.

Sherri - posted on 03/02/2012

@Jodi yes you are asked if you are circumcising if you have a boy for your first OB visit and you are then asked again in the hospital within 24hrs of birth.



Actually with Bentley I was in surgery and they asked my husband and my husband signed all the paperwork and he went in for surgery while I was in recovery. So when I was brought up to my room, Bentley had already been circumcised. Although that was fine since my OB had already known I was getting it done and I pushed to have it done within 24hrs so I could be released first thing the next morning.

Sarah - posted on 03/02/2012

I'm not debating that people have the best intent for their child. I'm not asking this in a judgmental way, just curious what reasons people had. I would consider myself fairly knowledgeable on the subject as a pediatric nurse and mom of a boy. I've done a ton of research on the matter as well. Medically, it is not indicated for a newborn. So I'm just curious on specific reasons people had it done.

Jessica - posted on 03/02/2012

@ sarah. I personally did what I truly believe was the best thing to do for my son. I did research, asked alot of questions, and after all of that I feel like I made the right choice

Sarah - posted on 03/02/2012

I'm just curious why so many people feel that it is something necessary to be done? What were your reasons for circumcising your sons? Did you feel fully educated on the risks of circumcision (infection, sepsis, improper removal of the prepuce, accidental castration, bleeding, death)?

Jessica - posted on 03/02/2012

actually my son was numbed before his surgery and given a cream for me to put on that is a topical analgesic, which continues to numb the penis and therefore he experienced little to no pain

Jessica - posted on 03/02/2012

hmm. I have a one month old boy who is circumcised. My husband and I talked about it for months and even consulted our doctor who gave us his medical oppinion. It was hard the first day but it's been pretty easy to handle ever since. I personally think that a ban would only make some parents all the more determined to get it done, and therefore put the lil man all the more in a danger zone.

Jodi - posted on 03/02/2012

Really Sherri? Do they actually ask you whether you are circumcising or not when you have a baby boy there? Here, it isn't a question that is asked.

Sherri - posted on 03/02/2012

@ Lisa it is still a decision that I have to make as you are specifically asked to make it. Just like virtually any decision you will make for your child. So yes it is most certainly a parents decision and right to make.

Jodi - posted on 03/02/2012

The thing is, they can't really make it illegal, because then, those who do it for strong religious reasons will continue to have it done, but instead it will probably be in unsanitary conditions. It is a similar debate to that of abortion - while it may be abhorrent to many, the thought of it going into back yards is a worse thought, and we all know it will still occur. So let's make sure it remains legal so people don't die because they are determined to do it anyway.



However, having said that, I DO think it is important to ensure measures are in place to ensure it is discouraged. And I can see a lot of those measures coming into place worldwide, if they are not already there. For instance, in many places it is now classified as a cosmetic procedure and won't be covered by the free medical systems or by insurance, and will have to be paid for out of pocket. Many doctors are now refusing to perform the procedure at all. If there are enough obstacles in place, and real information out there dispelling the myths, most people would probably decide to just not bother.



And you can see in the statistics, that the trend to circumcise is decreasing. Less in the USA than anywhere else, but decreasing all the same.

Mother - posted on 03/02/2012

Putting everything side.....it is still a personal choice and is not illegal, therefore, the parents decision. Whether I agree or not, doesn't matter.

Minnie - posted on 03/02/2012

Sherri, circumcision isn't a medical decision when there is no medical need.

Minnie - posted on 03/02/2012

The study that jumped to the conclusion of circumcision prevents cervical cancer was conducted on jewish couples. Monogamous people who don't sleep around, spreading HPV.

Krista - posted on 03/02/2012

And this is why I'm not religious. I cannot imagine following any religion that requires me to cut off a healthy, functional part of my newborn's body.

Mother - posted on 03/02/2012

I agree Rabaab. The pain wouldn't be remembered. So, in your situation I think it would be best to circumcise the infant instead of the full grown man. :)

Krista - posted on 03/02/2012

Rabaab, did you realize that most cervical cancers can actually be prevented by way of regular pap smears? Is this something that you have done often?



Because in Australia, very few men are circumcised, and yet they have one of the lowest rates of cervical cancer in the world. This is primarily due to organized, regular screening. As well, a study was done on the incidence of cervical cancer amongst the Ibo people of Nigeria. The males in that population are ritually circumcised. The rate of cervical cancer was found to be high although the males are circumcised.



So it is a bit misleading to think that you're safer from cervical cancer just because your husband has no foreskin.



And lastly, if this is all about the possibility of your sons spreading disease to their wives, then why not have them do it prior to sexual maturity? Yes, the man will remember the pain. Big deal. At least it is HIS decision to do this. Plus, grown men can take painkillers -- infants can't.

Rabaab - posted on 03/01/2012

Hi, I am Muslim, and as part of our religion we actually have to circumcise. Now did any of you know that the women who are married to someone who have this, have less chance in getting cervical cancer. For us it is not a choice. You can wait till the child is older but remember the child suffers much more with pain then.

Sherri - posted on 03/01/2012

@Lisa Just like any medical decision to make for my children is my husband and I's decision to make until they are 18. Such as to vaccinate or not to vaccinate, To go to the dentist or not to go to the dentist etc. So should to circumcise or not too.

Sally - posted on 03/01/2012

@ jenna, just saying hi from the UK and to let you know that im one of many women from different countries on here and we do take an interest in these debates. Last i looked COM was for mothers worldwide.

I hear very little in the UK about circ. Its not available on the NHS unless there are medical reasons. Im sure jewish people still perform it but i think they have their own doctors or pay privately but don't quote me on that.

I am really against for all reasons except medical but it shouldn't be banned fot the reasons stated before about driving it underground.

How,why would anyone do this to a baby and if your going bang on about it being cleaner then shouldn't you be doing it to your daughters to. Its a stupid reason imo.

Yes your entitled to your opinion but im entitle to mine.

Minnie - posted on 03/01/2012

Why should it be your right?

Sherri - posted on 03/01/2012

It should be a parents choice. I have 4 boys, the last being born just 2 wks ago and all 4 of my boys are all circumcised and it should be my right.

Jen - posted on 03/01/2012

"Of course, my poor daughter will have to grow up and probably be with somebody who's not circumcised and be more likely to get infected from him, thanks to all these crazy parents who are pushing to get rid of it. "



Wow, I totally missed this.



I'm the crazy one because the vast majority of men on this planet aren't cut up, havent' been cut up and I felt no need to engage in it myself.



I feel sorry for my son now that women no longer have dowries and most American girls won't have their vaginal opening sewed shut so we'll never know for sure if she's pure.

Sarah - posted on 03/01/2012

I think there needs to be more education of the public on the risks of circumcision. A lot of people have a misconception that uncircumcised penises are dirtier than a circumcised one, or that a child's member must look like their Dad`s (IMO the most ridiculous arguement for it ever, if you`re old enough to know what your Dad`s penis looks like, you probably shouldn`t be seeing it anyways). For some religions, it`s a necessity, and rarely it is for medical issues, it should be allowed in those cases only. I don`t see the point in putting a child`s life at risk for an unnecessary cosmetic procedure (probably the only one legally allowed to be done on neonates).

Krista - posted on 03/01/2012

The United States has the highest rate of HIV infection and the highest rate of male circumcision in the industrialized world. Male circumcision, therefore, cannot reasonably be thought to prevent HIV infection.



Plus, some studies have shown that circumcision INCREASES the risk of infections:



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11434...

http://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2008/10...



Oh, and here's one showing that female partners of uncirc'd men are at no greater risk for bacterial vaginosis:



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles...





And no, infants can't make choices for themselves. But grown men can. So why not let him make that choice? If he is having problems with his foreskin and wants to be circumcised, then that is absolutely his right. But for a parent to take that upon themselves, to permanently remove a part of a baby's body, just in case it MIGHT someday get infected? That's nuts.

Jenna - posted on 03/01/2012

Yes, infants can't make the choices for themselves, which is why it's left to the parents to decide what they think is best for their child. *I* think circumcision is cleaner and better. You don't. That doesn't make me mutilating my child. And I'd like you to give me the stats of lower infections and STD's of women in foreign countries that don't circumcise. As you haven't provided that, I'm not sure I believe you that those stats aren't there.

Krista - posted on 03/01/2012

I'm so sick of all the people who feel so strongly against somebody else's PERSONAL choices that they think they have the right to go banning it for everyone.



It ain't personal if you're doing it to someone else, lady.



If some guy wants to get himself circumcised, then yes, that is absolutely his business. Yay for him.



But if parents want to irrevocably alter the genitals of an unconsenting, helpless infant, based on incredibly shaky and superstitious "reasoning", then I will absolutely speak up, the same as I feel free to speak up when it comes to female genital mutilation.

Krista - posted on 03/01/2012

Jenna, you COMPLETELY missed my point.



You were claiming that uncircumcised penises cause infection -- that if your daughter were to wind up with an uncircumcised male, that she would end up riddled with constant infections.



I was pointing out that MOST of the developed world does not circumcise, and yet, their women are not experiencing rampant infections.



So doesn't that make you wonder if perhaps, just perhaps, uncircumcised penises aren't as dirty as you think?

Jodi - posted on 03/01/2012

Average infant circumcision rate in Australia 12.9%, average infant circumcision rate in UK 3%, average infant circumcision rate in Canada 31.9%, average circumcision rate in USA 56%.



And yet, penile cancer is no more prevalent in any of these countries, USA has the HIGHEST incidence of HIV and other STDs of ANY of these nations. Obviously circumcising your boys is working for you.

Jodi - posted on 03/01/2012

*waves from Australia*

Jodi - posted on 03/01/2012

My position is backed by the medical profession, most of whom, in my country, refuse to perform the procedure. The US is pretty much the only country in the world hanging on to the right to lop bits off boys' penises *just in case*.

Jenna - posted on 03/01/2012

Krista--do you really think the people on other continents hear about our whiny debates on it here? I doubt they do. I doubt they even care. My decision whether or not to circumcise has nothing to do with what a bunch of people I don't know and never will meet on another continent do or don't do. I try to choose what I see to be the cleaner, healthier option for my kids, even if it causes them a little pain for one small moment of their entire 80-100 years of existence. Heaven knows, it's not the only pain they'll ever feel. And it's not as barbaric as you people make it out to be. Out of my four boys, only one of them cried even at all and that's because he didn't like being strapped down, not because of the circumcision. And most men don't sit around debating whether or not their parents should or shouldn't have circumcised them. I bet most don't even give it a second thought until they are faced with this question from their wife. I'm so sick of all the people who feel so strongly against somebody else's PERSONAL choices that they think they have the right to go banning it for everyone. Are they going to ban vaccines because of the rare chance of a bad reaction? Are they going to ban formula because breast is best? It's ridiculous how people think they need to be up in everybody else's business all the time. My own husband thinks it's a crock, the great circumcision debate. He says he doesn't give a rat's ass if sex is supposedly better uncut because he enjoys it plenty as a cut man. Since he never experienced the other, why should it even be a consideration when circumcising a baby or not? That's one of the arguments against circumcision that I loathe the most because really, unless studies have been done on grown men who've had sex both ways, there's no way that there could even be a comparison. This whole debate is ridiculous.

Jenna - posted on 03/01/2012

Jodi, And what you did is proof that all of us can find research to back up whatever view we believe which is why I again say that it's nobody's damn business whether I have circumcised my four boys or not. And it shouldn't be banned. That was the question. I'm tired of the government sticking their face in everybody's business and banning things left and right but the real issues that cause the most problems are never addressed or even referenced because everybody's afraid of being bigots or judgmental and intolerant. If the government bans circumcision, then I guess I'll just be happy that I'm done having babies and hope that their ban doesn't end up backfiring just like so many other government initiatives do.

Krista - posted on 03/01/2012

Of course, my poor daughter will have to grow up and probably be with somebody who's not circumcised and be more likely to get infected from him, thanks to all these crazy parents who are pushing to get rid of it.



I think your daughter will be able to select her own sexual partners, thanks. And if she winds up getting recurrent infections from him, they can discuss it, as adults, and if he is willing to become circumcised for her sake, then that is his decision to make.



But I really do think you're overblowing things. After all, circumcision is extremely rare in Europe, South America and Asia, and you don't hear about rampant rates of infection in the women of these continents, do you?

Mother - posted on 03/01/2012

Actually that's not true Jodi. Johnny posted a special thread just for me. Calling me a "crazy that used up a whole day online" spewing my delusions. OF course my name was not posted but we all know who it was in reference to. Emma nicely joined in to say but but but what about m..m...mmercury and monkey tissue...something to that effect. THAT is not productive. That was not a debate. That was nothing more then a school yard bully fest. I took note of the people and it is the same group that seem to always be at the heart of the mob mentality.



The thread was short lived but I saw it. I replied to it. I also saw everyone that joined in to make fun at my expense. And why?? Because they disagree?? So, because they disagree it warrants a character smear and ridiculing??THAT is NOT how a debate goes.



"And just for the record, every one of those women is fully aware that a small percentage of people react to vaccines." -- I'm sure they are aware but because it wasn't THEIR child that SMALL PERCENTAGE doesn't matter.

Cyndi - posted on 03/01/2012

Hi. I just posted about this in another community. I think it is totally a personal decision, and I did have my 8 month old circumcised on day 2. I had done some research, but apparently not enough. At his one month appointment there was adhesion all the way around his little penis. He screamed when had to reopen.doctor said i need to keep that area cleaned every day until it stops wanting to close on its own. No one ever told me about this. I just did not know. Its 8 months later. He still gets these penile adhesions and it's not fun for him when the skin grows back together and mom keeps having to open the skin back up. I hate doing this. If I miss cleaning the scar area for more than 2 days, a little part will grow back together and it hurts him a little bit every time I have to reopen. I vow to do it every day, but then for some reason, a couple days go by and I have forgotten. Well, from what I've read it does not happen to all circumcised boysn, but it did to mine. Just FYI.

Jodi - posted on 03/01/2012

Kelly, I'm not aware that anyone called you crazed. They just disagree with your stance on vaccines because they believe your information is flawed. For every study, every piece of information, you can come up with to support your argument, there is information countering your argument. That is the way of things in any debate. You have to stop taking it so personally.



And just for the record, every one of those women is fully aware that a small percentage of people react to vaccines. But their view differs from yours because they (including me) acknowledge that the risk is small, and believe that the risk of the disease is greater. No-one has ever said there is no risk.

Jodi - posted on 03/01/2012

In response to Jenna:



1. Overall, urinary tract infections (UTI) occur at about the same rate in male and female infants during the first six months of life. Regardless of circumcision status, infants who present with their first UTI at 6 months (or less) are likely to have an underlying genitouninary abnormality. In children with a normal underlying anatomy, a study found as many circumcised infants with a UTI as those who retained their foreskin. The appropriate treatment for UTI, in males as well as females, is antibiotics, not prophylactic excision of the prepuce. According to the AAP, “Urinary tract infections are usually not life threatening and are easily treated in most cases.” Breastfeeding provides some measure of protection against UTI during the first six months of life.



2. "The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such cancers... Penile cancer is an extremely rare condition, affecting one in 200,000 men... ( a long shot from 1 in 1000). Perpetrating the mistaken belief that circumcision prevents cancer is inappropriate.''

The American Medical Association, in a July 2000 report, states, “… because this disease [penile cancer] is rare and occurs later in life, the use of circumcision as a preventive practice is not justified.”



3. Some studies show that circumcision has a slight preventive effect for AIDS and some STDs; however, other studies show an insignificant or opposite effect, especially for chlamydia. The bottom line: sexual practices have a much greater effect on the chance of becoming infected than circumcision status. If someone acts on the misconception that circumcision alone will protect them, they are taking unwise chances.



4. Circumcision was once believed to improve male hygiene, but current medical information shows this is not true. Circumcision does not make the penis any cleaner or healthier. Normal bathing and healthy hygiene are advised for all men, circumcised or not.



5. Medically necessary circumcisions later in life are very rare. Because circumcision is an amputation, the only absolute indications for circumcision are frostbite, severe infection, or cancer. All other "foreskin problems" can almost always be successfully treated using more conservative treatments.



6. The idea that the foreskin is prone to infection is not supported medically. The vast majority of men never have a problem with their foreskin. In the rare circumstance that the foreskin has an infection, it can usually be treated with topical creams and antibiotics. When any part of the body gets infected, the goal is to cure the infection. Amputation of the infected body part should always be the absolute last resort.



7. The wives of billions of intact men abroad and the wives of millions of intact men in the US don't think so. Most people in America certainly are more used to the look of a circumcised penis, but that doesn't make an intact penis less attractive. Besides, if it really comes down to appearances, then circumcision is purely a cosmetic procedure. We wouldn't give a baby a nose job or a face lift, would we?

(and let's face it, I wouldn't consider the penis a particularly attractive thing anyway).



8. When erect, there is no difference in the look of a circumcised and uncircumcised penis, and I am pretty sure that is when your "poor" daughter would be looking at it, so I think she will survive.

Mother - posted on 03/01/2012

Ya, well.......now ya know. It's sad that such a story even has to be told before an ounce of respect is shown. Everyone has a story....but people would rather just assume I'm some crazed conspiracy theorist who doesn't have an ounce of brain power. I'm a private person and I don't like sharing such stuff. It ruins my whole day. It just takes me back to the most horrible time in my entire life. But, I lost my temper. I let Krista's rant get the better of me and BOOM. I'm usually better at maintaining calm.



To have to listen to the insults being spewed...and for what? I'm not hurting anyone. I'm trying to keep me and mine safe. People sit on their high horses and talk about all these what ifs...and they don't have a clue about being left alone....about their kids REALLY suffering....about the heart stopping fear. They've never held their lethargic bloody child who is looking to you for answers. Nobody knows the pent up RAGE that boils inside after the fear calms. No one will ever know the guilt I carry for letting my perfect little angel become just another vaccine injured statistic that NO ONE even believes exists.



ETA::But, its over with now. So let's move on. It took me all day to get over my bad mood and I don't wanna go back. I sobbed the entire time I wrote that first post and I think that I used up my crying for the rest of the year. I'm done.

Jodi - posted on 03/01/2012

Actually, Kelly, no, it genuinely does baffle me. But I wrote that before knowing your PERSONAL history with vaccines, so now I understand a little better why you don't vaccinate your children. I probably wouldn't either if my daughter had the reaction yours did.

Jenna - posted on 03/01/2012

Hence what "cleaner and more hygienic" mean.

Mother - posted on 03/01/2012

"I can't believe that someone who refuses to vaccinate her child because of her fear for her child's safety would put it through a circumcision and not be concerned." -- ya know what Jodi......never mind. I'm curious why you felt the need to post this if not just to entice a reaction out me. That post right there provides way more information about you then it does me.



I hope you feel better now. And to whomever thought it was a good giggle....I hope you feel good about yourself as well.

Jenna - posted on 03/01/2012

There are several benefits to circumcision:



1 Many older men, who have bladder or prostate gland problems, also develop difficulties with their foreskins due to their surgeon's handling, cleaning, and using instruments. Some of these patients will need circumcising. Afterwards it is often astonishing to find some who have never ever seen their glans (knob) exposed before!



2 Some older men develop cancer of the penis - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.



3 Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?



4 Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)



A BBC television programme in November 2000 showed two Ugandan tribes across the valley from one another. One practised circumcision and had very little AIDS, whereas, it was common in the other tribe, who then also started circumcising. This programme showed how the infection thrived in the lining of the foreskin, making it much easier to pass on.



5 As with HIV, so some protection exists against other sexually transmitted infections. Accordingly, if a condom splits or comes off, there is some protection for the couple. However, the only safe sex is to stick to one partner or abstain.



6 Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence.



7 Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.



8 Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.



http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.htm...

Jodi - posted on 03/01/2012

There is no proof that circumcising is cleaner or more sanitary.

Jenna - posted on 03/01/2012

I don't think it should be banned. Honestly, this is one of those parenting debates that ranks among the most lame. It's nobody else's business if I have my boys circumcised or not. Of course, my poor daughter will have to grow up and probably be with somebody who's not circumcised and be more likely to get infected from him, thanks to all these crazy parents who are pushing to get rid of it. There IS in fact proof that it's a cleaner, more hygienic way to be and for so many people in today's world so hung up on germs and being afraid of them, it amazes me the amount of parents who think circumcision is bad and who think vaccination is bad but then they go around with Lysol wipes over everything all the time and put shopping cart covers on the carts but they won't do two things that can help people be more sanitary. Sign of the times, I guess, where everything is backwards and messed up.

Jodi - posted on 03/01/2012

I can't believe that someone who refuses to vaccinate her child because of her fear for her child's safety would put it through a circumcision and not be concerned.