Has this new San Francisco bill been discussed here?

[lovemyboys]

Well, unless you're under law that requires it, it's an elective surgery. I believe that it's more serious than most realize, and would only have it if I were of Jewish descent.

 

Can't believe people routinely cut off a portion of their child without weighing the choice.... There are many different things to think about...

 

;)

 

It's my understanding that there is circumcision in Christian and Muslim families as well as Jewish.

 

Calling this procedure, which is done shortly after birth, "cosmetic" or merely to follow the father's wishes, is somewhat uninformed wrt the significance of the ritual.

 

Regardless, we definitely believe it's the parents' decision.

 

Sadly, the San Francisco initiative has taken a definitely anti-Semitic turn recently when one of the pro-ban groups published a comic.

[LibraryLover]

It is not a bill, it is an initiative. Isn't this were I came in? :D

 

Bill

 

 

I just read that. Mea culpa. You are right!

 

Of course...it's also true bills languish and die by the crusie ship- full.

 

Anyone can present a bill ....or an initiative

 

I am thinking about filing legislature disallowing hsing mothers to talk about how their 5 year old reads on a 6th grade level and how difficult it is to find sweet and appropriate books for them because all the books written at a 6th grade reading level are only ever about overl-sexed vampires, drug abuse, kids with two mothers, and divorced parents.

 

Really, there ought to be an intiative.

Edited June 13, 2011 by LibraryLover

[mommaduck]

Would someone please fill me in on the difference between a bill and an initiative? I thought initiative meant they were going to form a bill to try to pass?

[Spy Car]

Would someone please fill me in on the difference between a bill and an initiative? I thought initiative meant they were going to form a bill to try to pass?

 

Where is School-House Rock when we need it? :D

 

A "bill" is a potential law that is introduced in a legislature.

 

A ballot initiative is a potential law that gets on a ballot (generally speaking) because citizens have signed a threshold number of valid signatures on a ballot petition to get it qualified for approval by a vote of the people.

 

Bill

[happypamama]

I would definitely consider myself to be an intactivist and am absolutely against routine newborn circumcision, but I think this is a very slippery slope. I don't think it's the government's business to ban or require circumcisions, breastfeeding, vaccinations, hospital or home births, home or private school, raw or pasteurized milk, etc., etc. I believe that some of those things are wrong and/or harmful, or that they can be, but I sure don't want the government deciding that for me! What if the government trots out a bunch of studies showing why public schools are better for children and ends up making home educating illegal? No thanks. I'd like my government to focus on doing things for the great good of the country, like keeping the roads decent and keeping our country safe from terrorists; I can make my own decisions about how to raise my family.

[lovemyboys]

To call circumcision a form of child abuse is about as insulting as it gets. Parents who circumcise their sons aren't abusing them. What next-arrest everyone who leaves town to have it done as soon as they cross some border when returning home? Asylum in Oregon for circumcisers?

 

:blink:

 

Totally agree with you here. How do we leap from a quick minor procedure for a newborn, often based on religious belief and/or long-term health implications

 

 

 

to child abuse???

 

Beyond. the. pale.

 

ktgrok, your advocacy for a particular viewpoint is quite clear. But others have a different pov that is equally valid for them, no need to be so adamant that all accept your pov.

 

In fact, if you google SF's proposed ban of circumcision and comics, you'll see the anti-Semitic nature of the proposal, at least from one perspective. It's ugly. For those that do so due to religious belief, this is important to them, not whimsy or the current vogue or whatever.

[mommaduck]

Where is School-House Rock when we need it? :D

 

A "bill" is a potential law that is introduced in a legislature.

 

A ballot initiative is a potential law that gets on a ballot (generally speaking) because citizens have signed a threshold number of valid signatures on a ballot petition to get it qualified for approval by a vote of the people.

 

Bill

 

Thank you, Bill :) I knew you would be able to educate me on that one.

[lovemyboys]

The reasons are not "close" at all. Female Genital Mutilation removes the clitoris. Sexual pleasure is destroyed.

 

Male circumcision does not destroy sexual pleasure or the male sex organ. They have no commonality. I also abhor FGM and have worked on projects (with a friend who was a victim of this practice) to raise consciousness on the issue.

 

Conflating the removal of a male foreskin with removal of a woman's clitoris makes the efforts to combat FGM all the harder. These two things are not remotely the same.

 

Bill

 

Thank you.

[Spy Car]

Thank you, Bill :) I knew you would be able to educate me on that one.

 

My pleasure. If the news story I Googled is correct (San Francisco Examiner) the threshold to quality a ballot initiative in San Francisco is 7,168 valid signatures.

 

Bill

[Carol in Cal.]

:blink:

 

Totally agree with you here. How do we leap from a quick minor procedure for a newborn, often based on religious belief and/or long-term health implications

 

 

 

to child abuse???

 

 

 

This has been tough for me as well.

 

It's been tough to find out what male circ is actually like. Having seen several now, and hearing casual references to aftermath issues among friends of mine, and having read about the nerve issues, I can tell you for sure that from starting with regarding it as a minor procedure with some lasting benefits and no real downsides I progressed pretty quickly WITH INFORMATION to it being a hill I was prepared to die on if I had a boy. Still, it's a view that is in transition in society. I think that informed consent is a real issue as are parental rights and religious freedom. Which, of course, makes this all extremely complicated ethically and socially.

[Spy Car]

This has been tough for me as well.

 

It's been tough to find out what male circ is actually like. Having seen several now, and hearing casual references to aftermath issues among friends of mine, and having read about the nerve issues, I can tell you for sure that from starting with regarding it as a minor procedure with some lasting benefits and no real downsides I progressed pretty quickly WITH INFORMATION to it being a hill I was prepared to die on if I had a boy. Still, it's a view that is in transition in society. I think that informed consent is a real issue as are parental rights and religious freedom. Which, of course, makes this all extremely complicated ethically and socially.

 

I'm feeling like I'm in the Godfather III, but you need to be aware of the FALSE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION that is perpetuated on anti-circumcision websites.

 

There are risks with both circumcision and not performing a circumcision. I think reasonable people (and people in different circumstances) can come to different conclusions based on their risk assessments.

 

I witnessed my son's humanely performed circumcision. There was no pain, not even a wince. It was a "non-event" in terms of pain and suffering. One would never know such a thing was possible from anti-circ websites.

 

There are risks either way and it would be better to have real information rather than propaganda designed to inflame passion and obfuscate reason. As I said, I think a parent could make a "reasoned" decision either way. But tactics like calling circumcision "mutilation" or "amputation" shut down reasoned discussion.

 

Bill

[ktgrok]

Bill regarding the issue of inflammatory or biased language, I have to say I believe you are off base. These are not terms invented by internet activists, they are the actual medical terms. It IS amputation. Amputation of the foreskin. That is what it is. Look it up in a medical book and that is what it is. You feel that amputation of the foreskin is justified, others feel that amputation should not be done without far greater reasons than are currently provided.

 

Also, the word intact is not some term invented by activists. It is the actual medical term and has no bias either way. I work in veterinary medicine and we call dogs that have been sterilized neutered, and those that haven't had those organs removed intact. As in "the patient is an 11 year old intact female." TRUST me, this is NOT an attempt to make intact dogs sound better. We highly promote neutering, we consider it the better choice, and yet we still refer to dogs that haven't been neutered as intact. We don't say "un-neutered". You learn very early on that using that term is considered incorrect.

 

So please don't think that the terms are an attempt to degrade you. They are just medical terms. This is not some internet conspiracy.

[ktgrok]

 

There are risks either way and it would be better to have real information rather than propaganda designed to inflame passion and obfuscate reason. As I said, I think a parent could make a "reasoned" decision either way. But tactics like calling circumcision "mutilation" or "amputation" shut down reasoned discussion.

 

Bill

 

And I think that if we don't use the real descriptions, and admit that it is amputation of the foreskin, which is an organ with specific purposes than we do not provide the information needed for a parent to make a "reasoned" decision.

 

This whole conversation reminds me of my son's first pediatrician exam, at a day old. The pediatrician (who had actually been my pediatrician back in the day) asked if he was going to be circumcised. I said no, prepared for a battle. But all he said was "lucky boy" with a smile.

 

Turns out there are doctors that prefer boys remain intact :)

[Aelwydd]

It is not comparable. It is a disreputable tactic to keep equating things that are highly dissimilar. It is not "hair-splitting."

 

One practice destroys a woman's ability to experience sexual pleasure. Male circumcision does nothing of the sort.

 

It only inflames emotions to link these two unrelated practices.

 

We could call ear-piercing "ear-lobe mutilation" if we wanted to create heat rather than light. This is a strange practice than has no benefits what-so-ever.

 

There are benefits of circumcision. Whether the benefits outweigh the risks is a matter of on-gong debate. Reasonable people may come to different conclusions. I might have made a different decision if I didn't have an outstanding physician who was expect doing the procedure in a humane fashion. But a parent puts their sons and the partners of their son's at increased risk for very serious diseases. That is a reality. Hygiene issues are real and span a lifetime, from infancy to old age. UTIs in young boys can be quite serious and are virtually unknown in circumcised boys. There are valid "reasons" for choosing circumcision.

 

As a parent I weighed the benefits and the risks and am quite confident in my decision. And am very grateful my parents made the same decision on my behalf.

 

Bill

 

Bill, did you, in fact, read the WHO article, or the other article I linked? Would you like me to include more articles? You are denying a medical fact. First degree FGM is absolutely comparable to male circ.

 

Look, I don't know if you have ever had Anatomy and Phys. My B.S. is in Health Studies, so I've had a lot of classes on the human body. Perhaps you were unaware that the anatomical structures on male genitalia all began as being inherently female in the womb? All mammalian life begins as female. A fetus only develops as a male due testosterone and other male hormones causing internal organs to drop and eventually protrude from the body. Thus, the ovaries literally drop down out of the body to form the testes, and the uterus folds itself outward and is seamed up. Finally, the clitoris becomes enlarged, along with the urethra and becomes a penis.

 

Yes, every male penis started as a clitoris. It is scientific FACT. So, when a clitoral hood or prepuce is removed, or the clitoris itself is nicked or is partially removed, it is the same, physiologically speaking, as when a male has the upper skin of his penis removed.

 

Bill, I usually agree with you on most topics, and find your posts balanced and factual. But, I'm not understanding your flat denial of what is documented fact??? You keep insisting that FGM is ONLY the removal of the clitoris. I've provided links to show you that that is NOT the only definition, or form of FGM. Then, you insist that FGM is ONLY done for the purposes of stifling a woman's sexuality. Again, there are many, many articles and books that talk about the fact that FGM is practiced for a multitude of reasons, one of the biggest being cited by women themselves is cleanliness.

 

Furthermore, hygiene issues from uncirced boys arise about as often as tightness, and other issues do from circed boys. That is what the body of research shows, and is why the AAP and every other major health organization in the west, and in Australia, does not recommend the practice. The benefits, on the whole of the population, do not out weigh the risks posed by infection, structural damage caused by poor cutting, surgeries necessitated when a foreskin occasionally regrows, and so forth.

 

 

Most European countries have very low circ rates, and they are not brimming full of HIV and other STDs or other problems, at least no worse than the U.S. Relying on circumcision for the prevention of this is extremely foolhardy, and IMO, promotes a dangerous reliance upon a very poor method of protection. Barrier methods are the key, as is being responsible about who you sleep with, and having testing done.

 

I am NOT condemning you as a parent for choosing to circ your son. I told you that I made the same choice (before I had done more research into the matter, and before I had taken many health classes and learned more about this subject). I don't really support a law banning it, because I think that this is an issue that requires mass education, just like FGM.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Aelwydd

[Aelwydd]

Oh, and I meant to address one more of your arguments, Bill. You presume that FGM always destroys the ability of the woman to enjoy sex. If you read the second link, it contains information which directly disputes your presupposition.

 

Furthermore, (and god I can't believe I'm telling you this) I had a procedure done when I was 3 years old that was, definitively, 1st degree FGM. It was done in a hospital and for medical reasons.

 

And yes, I still retain the ability to enjoy sex.

[Aelwydd]

And I think that if we don't use the real descriptions, and admit that it is amputation of the foreskin, which is an organ with specific purposes than we do not provide the information needed for a parent to make a "reasoned" decision.

 

 

Yes. You are correct that that is the medical term used for circumcision. It is sort of similar to how I sometimes debate with hard-line pro-life folks about abortion. When I am presented with such-and-such statistics about the numbers of abortions at a given hospital, I always ask them, which abortions were induced, and which were spontaneous? Because, I find using medical terms and definitions to be much more helpful in determining facts, than emotional terms like "abortion mills."

 

I don't like, emotionally-speaking, that I allowed my son's physical person to be permanently altered--mutilated, if you will. Apart from my emotional reaction, is the medical, objective fact. If I get angry, I don't get angry at those who use accurate medical terminology; I get angry at myself for not asking more questions.

[elizabeth]

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20395432 Regarding foreskin and HIV transmission . Thought this might be of interest.

[Spy Car]

Oh, and I meant to address one more of your arguments, Bill. You presume that FGM always destroys the ability of the woman to enjoy sex. If you read the second link, it contains information which directly disputes your presupposition.

 

Furthermore, (and god I can't believe I'm telling you this) I had a procedure done when I was 3 years old that was, definitively, 1st degree FGM. It was done in a hospital and for medical reasons.

 

And yes, I still retain the ability to enjoy sex.

 

I am sorry for whatever was done to you. There is a vast difference between removal of the clitoral hood and complete removal of the clitoris (as I am sure you are aware). I have done work on behalf of FGM awareness and I'm not indifferent to the effects it has on women. One of my dearest friends had her clitoris revoked when she was a girl and I'm sensitive to the reality.

 

I do not want to cause any hurt feelings on your part, or experience hurt feelings myself. So I really am going to leave this discussion now.

 

Bill

[Aelwydd]

I am sorry for whatever was done to you. There is a vast difference between removal of the clitoral hood and complete removal of the clitoris (as I am sure you are aware). I have done work on behalf of FGM awareness and I'm not indifferent to the effects it has on women. One of my dearest friends had her clitoris revoked when she was a girl and I'm sensitive to the reality.

 

I do not want to cause any hurt feelings on your part, or experience hurt feelings myself. So I really am going to leave this discussion now.

 

Bill

 

I understand. And I really do not mean hurt feelings on your part, either. I was being sincere in that I don't condemn or hate parents who choose to circ their sons. It's just that my experience has made me question the need for the practice, in any form, on any child, male or female. I apologize if I offended.

[kokotg]

I don't really get how "intact" is biased language, but "uncircumcised" isn't? Uncircumcised assumes that being circumcised is the default. Which, of course, it isn't. That's not how they come out. And nowadays circumcised boys are in the minority in the US, so by any standard one can think of, having an intact foreskin is the default. So I'll just go ahead and keep using language that acknowledges that I believe my sons were born with all the parts they were supposed to have.

[mommaduck]

I'm feeling like I'm in the Godfather III, but you need to be aware of the FALSE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION that is perpetuated on anti-circumcision websites.

 

There are risks with both circumcision and not performing a circumcision. I think reasonable people (and people in different circumstances) can come to different conclusions based on their risk assessments.

 

I witnessed my son's humanely performed circumcision. There was no pain, not even a wince. It was a "non-event" in terms of pain and suffering. One would never know such a thing was possible from anti-circ websites.

 

There are risks either way and it would be better to have real information rather than propaganda designed to inflame passion and obfuscate reason. As I said, I think a parent could make a "reasoned" decision either way. But tactics like calling circumcision "mutilation" or "amputation" shut down reasoned discussion.

 

Bill

But, Bill, (and we've gone this round before) one of my boys' circs wasn't humanely performed. He in such pain and trauma that he went semi-comatose for several days. Would not let anyone touch him or hold him, except me, otherwise he screamed his head off. He was 6mos old (the hospital would not do it sooner than that) and it was obvious to me that they did not used ANYTHING to numb him...they brought him to me that way after. They had had me sign a form taking responsibility for doing this to him before the procedure. And he's considered uncirc'd by the medical community, because they did a partial circ. He dealt with infections for years because of their pulling his forskin back, but still leaving most of it. He would have been better for them to either have left it alone or to do a full circ.

 

Point is: simply because YOUR son's circ was performed humanely and without pain, does not mean that all circs are. Just like with FGM...some merely snip/remove the clitoral hood and others remove the clitoris, labia, and even stitch up most of the vaginal opening.

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

I haven't seen an answer in all this to my question. If removing the foreskin is "genital mutilation" to an extreme that even a religious exemption is unacceptable, what about medical exemptions? My son was born with hypospadius and the doctor needed to use some of the foreskin as part of a surgical correction. If it is unacceptable to cut it off, for any reason, then what would you have had my son's doctor do? This isn't a procedure where you could get skin from another place. I think the statistic is 1/1,000 boys is born with this. What would you do for those boys? "Sorry, we don't think it's okay to mutilate your genitals under any condition, so you're just going to have to live with this correctable birth defect for the rest of your life."

[mommaduck]

I haven't seen an answer in all this to my question. If removing the foreskin is "genital mutilation" to an extreme that even a religious exemption is unacceptable, what about medical exemptions? My son was born with hypospadius and the doctor needed to use some of the foreskin as part of a surgical correction. If it is unacceptable to cut it off, for any reason, then what would you have had my son's doctor do? This isn't a procedure where you could get skin from another place. I think the statistic is 1/1,000 boys is born with this. What would you do for those boys? "Sorry, we don't think it's okay to mutilate your genitals under any condition, so you're just going to have to live with this correctable birth defect for the rest of your life."

 

I believe the initiative (and most of those that are anti-circ) are against ROUTINE infant circumcision. This is circing for non-medical reasons.

[ktgrok]

I haven't seen an answer in all this to my question. If removing the foreskin is "genital mutilation" to an extreme that even a religious exemption is unacceptable, what about medical exemptions? My son was born with hypospadius and the doctor needed to use some of the foreskin as part of a surgical correction. If it is unacceptable to cut it off, for any reason, then what would you have had my son's doctor do? This isn't a procedure where you could get skin from another place. I think the statistic is 1/1,000 boys is born with this. What would you do for those boys? "Sorry, we don't think it's okay to mutilate your genitals under any condition, so you're just going to have to live with this correctable birth defect for the rest of your life."

 

Medical procedures are obviously different. No one wants to make medically needed circumcision illegal, any more than they want to make any other kind of skin graft or medically needed surgery illegal. They want to outlaw routine circumcision.

[delaney]

I just don't have an problem with circ'ing and I am 4 and 0 for good experiences. None of my boys had issues. I don't want the decision taken out of my hands unless they can PROVE that it is better one way or the other. I guess I just went with what is the norm for my family and area. I just wanted my boys to "look" like DH.

[ktgrok]

I just don't have an problem with circ'ing and I am 4 and 0 for good experiences. None of my boys had issues. I don't want the decision taken out of my hands unless they can PROVE that it is better one way or the other. I guess I just went with what is the norm for my family and area. I just wanted my boys to "look" like DH.

 

I get that...I just don't want the decision taken out of the actual patient's hands, unless they can PROVE that it is better one way or the other. No one wants to eliminate choice, they just want to give the choice to the person with the penis in question, unless there is a PROVEN reason not to.

 

I am not picking on you, I just wanted to clarify that those supporting the ban are not against choices. They just disagree as to who gets the choice. No one wants the government to make the choice. They just want the penis bearer to do it.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

I get that...I just don't want the decision taken out of the actual patient's hands, unless they can PROVE that it is better one way or the other. No one wants to eliminate choice, they just want to give the choice to the person with the penis in question, unless there is a PROVEN reason not to.

 

I am not picking on you, I just wanted to clarify that those supporting the ban are not against choices. They just disagree as to who gets the choice. No one wants the government to make the choice. They just want the penis bearer to do it.

 

But that is, in effect, creating a worse situation. Should an individual choose to have the procedure they would be forced to have it at an age where the pain, suffering, recovery, procedure are all greater and more complicated. The effect of demanding such a choice is to actually remove the element of reasonable choice.

 

Plus-this is also indirectly telling parents that they are not competent to make medical decisions for their children. That a vote by the general public has the ability to and precedence in determining what choices parents may make for their children. The present system allows for choice and options-the proposed alternative restricts choices both directly and indirectly.

 

:banghead:

 

Can't keep doing this to myself.

Edited June 10, 2011 by JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst

[kokotg]

But that is, in effect, creating a worse situation. Should an individual choose to have the procedure they would be forced to have it at an age where the pain, suffering, recovery, procedure are all greater and more complicated. The effect of demanding such a choice is to actually remove the element of reasonable choice.

 

 

 

People keep saying this, but I've never seen any actual evidence that adult circumcision is drastically more complicated or painful than infant. Adults, of course, are able to tell you when something hurts, so there's a difference. But I looked up aftercare instructions on a couple of medical websites, and they all said stuff like, "take ibuprofen for the pain, keep dressing on for the first day, no sex for 4 to 6 weeks, you might have to take a bit of time off of work if your job involves heavy lifting." It sounds pretty comparable to a vasectomy or something. Of course, there are anecdotal stories on the pro-circ websites...but the anti-circ websites could certainly match them anecdote for anecdote with horror stories about infant circumcisions.

 

ETA: I just finally managed to find a (pro-circ) website attempting to argue that the complication rate is higher for adult circumcision....but it did a pretty laughably bad job of it. It cited a bunch of studies of adult circumcision in African countries with complication rates between 1 and 4 percent, almost none of them serious complications. I'm not sure what they're claiming the complication rate is for infant circumcision, but I've certainly seen higher numbers than that quoted. And I'm not sure complication rates in sub Saharan Africa are really what you want to compare with US hospitals anyway. If that's the best they can do, I'm not even a little bit impressed.

Edited June 10, 2011 by kokotg

[ktgrok]

People keep saying this, but I've never seen any actual evidence that adult circumcision is drastically more complicated or painful than infant. Adults, of course, are able to tell you when something hurts, so there's a difference. But I looked up aftercare instructions on a couple of medical websites, and they all said stuff like, "take ibuprofen for the pain, keep dressing on for the first day, no sex for 4 to 6 weeks, you might have to take a bit of time off of work if your job involves heavy lifting." It sounds pretty comparable to a vasectomy or something. Of course, there are anecdotal stories on the pro-circ websites...but the anti-circ websites could certainly match them anecdote for anecdote with horror stories about infant circumcisions.

 

:iagree:

[Aelwydd]

I haven't seen an answer in all this to my question. If removing the foreskin is "genital mutilation" to an extreme that even a religious exemption is unacceptable, what about medical exemptions? My son was born with hypospadius and the doctor needed to use some of the foreskin as part of a surgical correction. If it is unacceptable to cut it off, for any reason, then what would you have had my son's doctor do? This isn't a procedure where you could get skin from another place. I think the statistic is 1/1,000 boys is born with this. What would you do for those boys? "Sorry, we don't think it's okay to mutilate your genitals under any condition, so you're just going to have to live with this correctable birth defect for the rest of your life."

 

Well, I can't speak for others who are pro-intact, but as I said before, I don't support this ballot becoming law. I don't agree with routine circ'ing, but I think that the best approach is educate the public about it.

 

I'm also wary of the potential for anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim feelings such a law would engender. Parents' rights versus child's rights versus religious rights -- there's a lot of room in there for abuse on all sides, if the law gets too heavy, KWIM? So, again, I'm in favor of reducing the number of circ'd boys based on parental choice through education.

[mommaduck]

Well, I can't speak for others who are pro-intact, but as I said before, I don't support this ballot becoming law. I don't agree with routine circ'ing, but I think that the best approach is educate the public about it.

 

I'm also wary of the potential for anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim feelings such a law would engender. Parents' rights versus child's rights versus religious rights -- there's a lot of room in there for abuse on all sides, if the law gets too heavy, KWIM? So, again, I'm in favor of reducing the number of circ'd boys based on parental choice through education.

 

:iagree:

[lovemyboys]

But that is, in effect, creating a worse situation. Should an individual choose to have the procedure they would be forced to have it at an age where the pain, suffering, recovery, procedure are all greater and more complicated. The effect of demanding such a choice is to actually remove the element of reasonable choice.

 

Plus-this is also indirectly telling parents that they are not competent to make medical decisions for their children. That a vote by the general public has the ability to and precedence in determining what choices parents may make for their children. The present system allows for choice and options-the proposed alternative restricts choices both directly and indirectly.

 

:banghead:

 

Can't keep doing this to myself.

 

LOL You're right.

 

There are cases where a days-old infant's circumcision has gone wrong. But the huge majority of them are very quick and painless. Delaying this til a boy is a teen or adult does make it much more of an issue for the procedure and the recovery. And there in lies the persuasion, I suppose.

 

Using alarming language with coy disclaimers to be "accurate" are disingenuous. And quite dismissive of the religious significance that many are observing.

[ktgrok]

LOL You're right.

 

 

 

Using alarming language with coy disclaimers to be "accurate" are disingenuous. .

 

If the accurate terms are alarming, perhaps that is because what they are referring to is alarming. If you have accurate terminology that is less alarming I'd love to hear it. The phrase "amputation of the foreskin" seems pretty clinical to me, not inflammatory.

[stripe]

As an aside, I know many men who remember their own circumcisions, performed without anesthesia. They are all adamantly pro-circumcision. Most of them, however, favor infant circumcision with anesthesia.

 

I wonder, this being SF, if there's not an exception for religious reasons, how about for artistic reasons?

 

I also wonder if anyone's opinion was ever changed as a result of internet discussions.

[happypamama]

But that is, in effect, creating a worse situation. Should an individual choose to have the procedure they would be forced to have it at an age where the pain, suffering, recovery, procedure are all greater and more complicated.

 

Actually, I would like to disagree with this respectfully. An adult who chooses to circ, or even the rare occasion that a circ is required for an older child (and truly, there are only a very few very rare occasions where there is NO other alternative), has several advantages over a newborn. One, an adult or older child can communicate pain, whereas a newborn cannot as effectively; newborns scream and often end up falling asleep, which is actually a defensive mechanism of shock and not a symptom of being calm and not bothered. Two, an adult or older child has more options for anesthesia and pain relief than a newborn does; I realize there are some doctors who do newborn circs with sufficient anesthesia, but many do not at all. Three, an adult may have to wait a while for s*x after a circ, but the adult does not have a diaper full of urine and feces against a healing wound 24/7 either. Four, an adult or older child, if he does not feel like eating for a few days because of pain, is unlikely to suffer serious harm; newborn circ can often interrupt an infant's feeding, which is bad in itself, but it has also been detrimental to more than one breastfeeding relationship (which I realize is not the end all, be all of everything, but from a public health perspective, if nothing else, we should want to encourage breastfeeding whenever possible and eliminate what obstacles we can). Five, at least some of the pain can be removed from an adult or older boy, because the natural separation that occurs between the foreskin and the rest of the penis has already happened; in a newborn, they are fused like a fingernail is to the finger and must be forcibly torn apart, which adds another layer of pain. And six, it is much easier to gauge the "right" amount to remove from an adult or older child, because the penis has grown a bit. There are many men who were circ'ed as infants who ended up with problems with s*x and such later because the "right" amount was not gauged properly, and too much was removed.

 

(Also, for anyone reading this who may be undecided about future sons, I can honestly say that caring for a little boy who has not been circ'ed is incredibly simple. No retracting to clean is necessary *at all* (and is, in fact, a very bad idea) -- the boy himself can do that when he is a little older, but until that happens, you wipe the p*nis like you would a finger, and that's it. When it's still closed up tight, it can't get anything in it; it's easier to clean than a baby girl, actually.)

 

I am glad that there are people here who have said their sons experienced no problems related to circ'ing. Hopefully that means your doctors were compassionate and used good anesthesia and everything. Unfortunately, there are many whose sons did experience problems, and many people who regret choosing to circ their infant sons. I really feel that parents need information from all sides in order to make the most informed decisions they can (and that goes for other things other than circ'ing, as well). Too many people have been told "do it as a newborn; it's better then than as an adult," and I want people to know about possible advantages to waiting. So that is why I bothered to type all of that out. :)

[ktgrok]

Actually, I would like to disagree with this respectfully. An adult who chooses to circ, or even the rare occasion that a circ is required for an older child (and truly, there are only a very few very rare occasions where there is NO other alternative), has several advantages over a newborn. One, an adult or older child can communicate pain, whereas a newborn cannot as effectively; newborns scream and often end up falling asleep, which is actually a defensive mechanism of shock and not a symptom of being calm and not bothered. Two, an adult or older child has more options for anesthesia and pain relief than a newborn does; I realize there are some doctors who do newborn circs with sufficient anesthesia, but many do not at all. Three, an adult may have to wait a while for s*x after a circ, but the adult does not have a diaper full of urine and feces against a healing wound 24/7 either. Four, an adult or older child, if he does not feel like eating for a few days because of pain, is unlikely to suffer serious harm; newborn circ can often interrupt an infant's feeding, which is bad in itself, but it has also been detrimental to more than one breastfeeding relationship (which I realize is not the end all, be all of everything, but from a public health perspective, if nothing else, we should want to encourage breastfeeding whenever possible and eliminate what obstacles we can). Five, at least some of the pain can be removed from an adult or older boy, because the natural separation that occurs between the foreskin and the rest of the penis has already happened; in a newborn, they are fused like a fingernail is to the finger and must be forcibly torn apart, which adds another layer of pain. And six, it is much easier to gauge the "right" amount to remove from an adult or older child, because the penis has grown a bit. There are many men who were circ'ed as infants who ended up with problems with s*x and such later because the "right" amount was not gauged properly, and too much was removed.

 

(Also, for anyone reading this who may be undecided about future sons, I can honestly say that caring for a little boy who has not been circ'ed is incredibly simple. No retracting to clean is necessary *at all* (and is, in fact, a very bad idea) -- the boy himself can do that when he is a little older, but until that happens, you wipe the p*nis like you would a finger, and that's it. When it's still closed up tight, it can't get anything in it; it's easier to clean than a baby girl, actually.)

 

I am glad that there are people here who have said their sons experienced no problems related to circ'ing. Hopefully that means your doctors were compassionate and used good anesthesia and everything. Unfortunately, there are many whose sons did experience problems, and many people who regret choosing to circ their infant sons. I really feel that parents need information from all sides in order to make the most informed decisions they can (and that goes for other things other than circ'ing, as well). Too many people have been told "do it as a newborn; it's better then than as an adult," and I want people to know about possible advantages to waiting. So that is why I bothered to type all of that out. :)

 

 

Sara you made some excellent points. The part about being able to use better pain control methods, and not having to dissect the foreskin from the glans are both huge reasons to do it later. The idea that too much or too little can be taken is also true. My Dh had a bit too much taken, which he never knew until we discussed it. He just knew there were things he wasn't happy with, but not why.

[Geo]

Well, I can't speak for others who are pro-intact, but as I said before, I don't support this ballot becoming law. I don't agree with routine circ'ing, but I think that the best approach is educate the public about it.

 

I'm also wary of the potential for anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim feelings such a law would engender. Parents' rights versus child's rights versus religious rights -- there's a lot of room in there for abuse on all sides, if the law gets too heavy, KWIM? So, again, I'm in favor of reducing the number of circ'd boys based on parental choice through education.

 

:iagree:

Bolded portion represents my sentiments exactly.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Geo

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Actually, I would like to disagree with this respectfully. An adult who chooses to circ, or even the rare occasion that a circ is required for an older child (and truly, there are only a very few very rare occasions where there is NO other alternative), has several advantages over a newborn. One, an adult or older child can communicate pain, whereas a newborn cannot as effectively; newborns scream and often end up falling asleep, which is actually a defensive mechanism of shock and not a symptom of being calm and not bothered. Two, an adult or older child has more options for anesthesia and pain relief than a newborn does; I realize there are some doctors who do newborn circs with sufficient anesthesia, but many do not at all. Three, an adult may have to wait a while for s*x after a circ, but the adult does not have a diaper full of urine and feces against a healing wound 24/7 either. Four, an adult or older child, if he does not feel like eating for a few days because of pain, is unlikely to suffer serious harm; newborn circ can often interrupt an infant's feeding, which is bad in itself, but it has also been detrimental to more than one breastfeeding relationship (which I realize is not the end all, be all of everything, but from a public health perspective, if nothing else, we should want to encourage breastfeeding whenever possible and eliminate what obstacles we can). Five, at least some of the pain can be removed from an adult or older boy, because the natural separation that occurs between the foreskin and the rest of the penis has already happened; in a newborn, they are fused like a fingernail is to the finger and must be forcibly torn apart, which adds another layer of pain. And six, it is much easier to gauge the "right" amount to remove from an adult or older child, because the penis has grown a bit. There are many men who were circ'ed as infants who ended up with problems with s*x and such later because the "right" amount was not gauged properly, and too much was removed.

 

(Also, for anyone reading this who may be undecided about future sons, I can honestly say that caring for a little boy who has not been circ'ed is incredibly simple. No retracting to clean is necessary *at all* (and is, in fact, a very bad idea) -- the boy himself can do that when he is a little older, but until that happens, you wipe the p*nis like you would a finger, and that's it. When it's still closed up tight, it can't get anything in it; it's easier to clean than a baby girl, actually.)

 

I am glad that there are people here who have said their sons experienced no problems related to circ'ing. Hopefully that means your doctors were compassionate and used good anesthesia and everything. Unfortunately, there are many whose sons did experience problems, and many people who regret choosing to circ their infant sons. I really feel that parents need information from all sides in order to make the most informed decisions they can (and that goes for other things other than circ'ing, as well). Too many people have been told "do it as a newborn; it's better then than as an adult," and I want people to know about possible advantages to waiting. So that is why I bothered to type all of that out. :)

 

 

I'm not a doctor-I'm just going by what various physicians have told me over the years in discussions about it and the stories I have heard from grown men about their experiences of having the procedure as an adult.

 

And how safe the procedure may (or may not) be as an older child or adult has no bearing on the fact that people are attempting to legislate away parental rights/responsibilities and religious practices on the assumption that the government or the voting public knows better than they do about how to care for a child. There is a vast difference between educating soon to be parents of boys about the options and eliminating options through legislation.

[Geo]

As an aside, I know many men who remember their own circumcisions, performed without anesthesia. They are all adamantly pro-circumcision. Most of them, however, favor infant circumcision with anesthesia.

 

I wonder, this being SF, if there's not an exception for religious reasons, how about for artistic reasons?

 

I also wonder if anyone's opinion was ever changed as a result of internet discussions.

 

 

O.M.g..:lol: :lol: :lol: :thumbup:

 

My gut response is something along the lines of, "I wouldn't be surprised" and "I would be very surprised".

Edited June 13, 2011 by Geo

[Tree House Academy]

I'd go for PSAs warning the general populace of the dangers/drawbacks of not circumcising, which exceed those of doing so.

 

We probably won't agree :D

 

Bill

 

:iagree: and we made a VERY informed choice. It really helped that dh had a relative who suffered horrible issues due to non-circumcision and had to have one at the age of 80. And truly...it was either THAT or lose, um, IT.

[Tree House Academy]

I also wonder if anyone's opinion was ever changed as a result of internet discussions.

 

And that would be a "NO." :tongue_smilie:

[lovemyboys]

I'm not a doctor-I'm just going by what various physicians have told me over the years in discussions about it and the stories I have heard from grown men about their experiences of having the procedure as an adult.

 

And how safe the procedure may (or may not) be as an older child or adult has no bearing on the fact that people are attempting to legislate away parental rights/responsibilities and religious practices on the assumption that the government or the voting public knows better than they do about how to care for a child. There is a vast difference between educating soon to be parents of boys about the options and eliminating options through legislation.

 

:iagree: That's pretty much it in a nutshell.