Can we talk about a subject that ONLY pertains to baby boys?

[Reya]

except that there is nothing that says Christians can't follow a personal conviction to adhere to any OT practices --as long as we are in complete agreement that adhering to those is NOT in any way tied to salvation.

 

The practice is similar to those who choose to be vegetarians because they recognize the health benefits and tie it in w/ God's initial diet plan :)

 

 

What if my personal conviction involved brutally beating my children on the basis of the "rod" passage in the OT? Would that be okay, too? As long as I have a personal conviction, am I then unassailable?

 

People who follow "the Garden diet" aren't really arguing from law, anyway. (Note/edit: There are people who follow bits of a Kosher-type diet because they feel that there must have been a functional purpose behind the laws that applies to today. Though I am not convinced of this myself--even though I've been intrigued by the idea!--that's different than a blanket "God said so, and so we should now because He had a reason" argument. It's actually the obvious *inapplicability* of many of the OT laws to practical modern matters that makes me reject the idea. For example, my polyblend shirts work just fine! :-P ) That and many other decisions are at worst harmless, as long as their toddlers get the dietary fats and other nutrients they need. Knock yourselves out. But you can't argue that ANYTHING is okay as long as you can connect it to the Bible some how and really, really feel sincere about it!

 

I choose not to drink at ALL, for instance. I don't think this is a Biblical directive in any way--I'm not supposed to tempt others or get drunk, but that's it; after all, Jesus drank. But alcoholism runs in my family, I hate the taste of most drinks, it puts me under with less than 1/4th c. of wine, I want to make SURE I don't drink when I don't know for sure I'm not pregnant, and I just don't see a *need* for it. So I can say that my choice is biblically inspired by the "do not be drunken with wine" verse, sure. (And hey, that's NT!) But I can't argue that this is a more *godly* choice than you guys who like your Mike's. *g* And I'll happily kick back my heels next to you while you enjoy it, too, and have a good time with my uncaffeinated soft drink. (I'm avoiding caffeine right now because of the miscarriage link even though there's PROBABLY no risk this late...) But each of these choices, though, are ones that do no harm. Moderate drinking outside of pregnancy isn't harmful. Teetotalling isn't harmful. That's the difference!

[Joanne]

Thoughts, experience, opinion, observation.

 

My boys are cut. The first because I didn't know better; the second because I didn't take a stand with my xh.

 

I do not believe in routine circ. Indeed, I don't believe in the need for circ except in circumstances so rare that they need not be mentioned.

 

The anecdotal "stories" that come up with this topic often fail to acknowledge that the remedy to infection/similar issue emerges from a culture that sees in intact penis as rare and sees circ'ing as a solution. In medical - rather than cultural - *reality* circ is clearly and by far not necessary, needed, or desirable.

 

However, the one big issue of contention I have with much of the anti-circ community is that they fail to understand our culture's reaction to circing from the perspective of having grown up in a circing culture. They have (understandably) become so passionately anti-circ, they fail to bring emotional empathy to the male who wants to circ his son for reasons of love; he knows what intact males went through, he can't shake the belief of lies (cleanliness, ect). His *motive* is care. It's not unkind, superficial, or weak. Many, many people who believe in circ-ing believe because their personal experience has lead them to it. Changing the numbers will eventually change the culture; it will take time.

 

We still have a concerning number of people in the medical community who believe in retracting an intact penis!

[Pensguys]

A friend once said, "If you told me I had to cut off a piece of him for god I would say you could have a piece of his ear."

 

I don't care if ya do or don't. I WILL NEVER let anyone touch my baby's penis with a sharp instrument.

 

What annoys the living piss out of me - people who have never even seen an intact baby telling me how you have to pull the foreskin back to clean it if you leave them intact....and then show me on their own circ'd baby how it gets dirty in the folds of what is left of any extra skin.

 

Ummm....I have intimately cared for 3 baby boys - permission from their mothers to nurse them while they were in my care. I have changed their diapers and several others who were intact. I can tell you they don't smell. And you leave the skin ALONE!!!

 

This person is my boyfriend's sister. I love her to death and enjoy sincerely her company.

But if she ever babysits for me - she's signing a statement and reading the chapter on the physiology and function of a foreskin - and the chapter which deals with care of the intact person.

 

(From Everything Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision).

 

In fact.......anyone who ever watches him is reading those chapters. I would seriously freak out on the person who messed with my kid's penis because they think they know more than I do.

 

If you want to circ - fine. It is a decision I believe you have to make for your self in the USA. In other countries it's accepted as the person's decision who owns the penis to make later in life if they choose that.

So - many here do it to their kids. I respect that. Don't boss me around - I won't boss you.

 

But good god! Would people opposed to the intact penis at least research the anatomy and physiology before they tell me that my baby's penis will smell! Good Grief! The head of the penis is ATTACHED to the foreskin until later in life. To pull it back is dangerous and painful and causes tearing!

 

And while I am at it..... intact foreskin has (Lagerhan's?) cells that secrete protective oils containing anti-fungal, anti-bacterial, and anti-viral properties. Something tells me that really - an intact male who was taught to bathe would actually run a lower risk of disease and infection.

 

My dear boyfriend feels he was robbed. Yes it would be worse had he been a girl and circ'd. But that doesn't make it any more acceptable to him. We have a grand old time "chatting" - but he does know now what he is missing. Maybe left intact though he would have "been made fun of" and have a complex and done it later in life - or not.....who knows. Nowadays it's quite common for parents to leave their babies intact for many reasons - including financial.

 

As a nurse I believe in informed consent.

Rarely have I ever heard a doctor REALLY explain ANY procedure, its pros AND cons, or any alternatives available. Usually they are in and out in under 5 minutes.

This to me is betrayal. (sp?)

 

Thank you, Karen and Reya....I'm agreeing "outloud" with you both (and Colleen too) but can't add anything to the argument other than I agree fully with both of you.

[anewday]

 

You (and others) were trying to argue that if God said to do it to anyone, it can't be bad. That's like saying that because there are references to biblically physically punishing a child being a good thing, then any level of beating can't be bad. This is very bad and dangerous reasoning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.I was not arguing anything. I was responding to the OP who asked why we circ'd or did not. I did not reply to debate the merits of one or the other, but simply to answer the question. I fully recognize and respect that others have different opinions on it and am not here to argue or change their minds.

 

2.Your comparisons (and charges of others comparing apples to oranges) are way off. I find it highly offensive that you accuse me of "dangerous reasoning" because I believe a sign (which I believe is now signified in baptism) considered a BLESSING that somehow that is comparable to believing that any level of abuse is OK. WHAT IN THE WORLD?

 

3. To restate - WE did it because WE believe something God gave as a sign and seal of His covenant people is not something that harmed them. In other words, God loves/ed His covenant people and did not give them a sign of that while at the same time causing physical problems while all the other nations experienced more "blessings/physical benefits" because they were NOT circumsized. The spiritual significance of circumcision did not carry a physical hardship/negative consequence. THAT is what I'm saying. I'm not trying to pick and choose from scripture and respectfully request that your insinuation that I did be retracted.

 

4. This is my last post on this thread. I did not jump in to be attacked for what I believe to be the best for MY son (not yours) and to have my intelligence insulted and logic ridiculed. I'm frankly stunned by the level of hostility and accusations you have leveled in this thread, not only to me but to several others as well. Please reread and reconsider your words here - they have been very disheartening.

[Peek a Boo]

This depends on the women. Some women are so sensitive that such stimulation is painful. Others feel next to nothing. And men are, on average, as sensitive as women there!

 

oh, i totally understand that --you're not telling me anything new ;)

but your point applies both ways: not all MEN are going to be as sensitive either --foreskin or no. Assuming that they don't know what good sex is cuz all they've known is "bad sex" is pretty presumptuous. We don't perform routine mastectomies/ breast bud removal. It is best for babies to be breastfed [life-giving purpose], which [usually] trumps any risk of cancer. Not so w/ the foreskin. We don't perform routine mastectomies on adult women because it is then a more complicated procedure [medically and emotionally]. Ditto on circs for adult men. There ARE cases where breastbuds have been removed and hysterectomies have been performed for children who are permanently disabled. Even that is seen as controversial.

 

removing an appendix is a lot more complicated [and carries higher risk factors as a result] than removing foreskin. That plays a HUGE role in determining what we can and can not remove safely and effectively. I'll give you a while to find some doctors who will say that it is as easy to remove an appendix as it is to remove foreskin. I'll wait.

 

i think Dawn did a pretty good job of pointing out her own personal convictions and clarifying them.

 

There is simply no comparison between brutal beatings and a quick spanking -even in light of the various interpretations of the rod verses. Reasonable people understand this. Even the 'high and tight' circ's are not turning men into eunuchs. That you refuse to see the difference in levels of application is problematic. Obviously even an OT circ was noticeable --and caused enough pain to bring down an army.

 

"People who follow "the Garden diet" aren't really arguing from law, anyway."

you still are refusing to address the issue of personal convictions: You are again ASSUMING a family's/ individual's motivations. you say "but I'm not convinced of this...." RIGHT!!!!! It's not about YOU!!! Personal convictions are about a specific PERSON being CONVInced -convicted. Personal convictions are NOT "unassailable", but w/in the community of believers you need to be ready to seek counsel from other believers on a variety of interpretations and understand/accept a personal conviction that you don't agree with. Go ahead and call the police if you think abuse is taking place --you are w/in your rights scripturally to "be subject to the authorities." But that's about as far as you can go. Try calling them for a circumcision. Bring in a few pastors about how unscriptural a circumcision done for non-salvation purposes is. Go ahead.

 

Harmless?

If moderate drinking during pregnancy does no harm [and it very often does no harm to mother of child], then you lose your argument. If there are men out there who do NOT consider it "harmful" that their foreskin was removed, you lose your argument. If some consider earrings "mutilation of the body" you just made a case for calling the police when people get their children's ears pierced at any age-- where do you want to draw the line?

 

what if moderate drinking outside of pregnancy IS harmful?

 

Who gets to decide the level and definition of "harm"?? you ?? Do you now want to define actions based on RISK of harm? well shoot --it's safer for moms to abort than carry to term. It is ludicrous to demand that others comply w/ your ideas of risk. Different people will be ready to deal w/ different levels of risk. The reasons may not be compelling for you, but obviously they are for quite a few others. You have rebutted all studies and reasons w/ your opinion of risk factors, suggestions on which variables are at fault, and verbal attacks at those who circ including stupid, ludicrous, . So we are still left --after this long discussion-- w/ your opinion.

[Colleen in SEVA]

I'm frankly stunned by the level of hostility and accusations you have leveled in this thread, not only to me but to several others as well. Please reread and reconsider your words here - they have been very disheartening.

 

:iagree:

[Danestress]

DH and oldest son circ'd, two younger sons not. DH just felt like it was a mistake, that he didn't want to circ his children and that he didn't think that "so they can look like me" is a good enough reason. I wasn't wanting to do it anyway, really, but he could have convinced me to do it if he had tried.

 

I don't really think there is a compelling reason to do it, though there is some medical evidence that it reduces the spread of certain diseases (HIV and, I believe, HPV. Don't quote me on that, though).

 

As for what women like, well, of course different women like different things. Since you can't really choose a spouse for your son in advance, you can't really know what she will like or not. I guess maybe you could not circ and just let them make that decision together someday if you really want. To me, I wanted to do what was best for my son himself. Many adult men are circumcised for various reasons. If any of my sons regrets our decision, he can have it taken care of. But if you circ and he regrets that, it's a much harder thing to change.

[5kidsforME]

"well, penile cancer is rarely seen in anyone, really. There are about 280 deaths a year in the US from penile cancer. " Very good point, however, in terms of UTI, some STD and HIV it has been shown to be helpful in preventing these diseases to be circumcised. Perhaps it is also a hygeine/education component.

 

Penial cancer is less then 1% of all cancers most commonly found in black men over 75 years of age.

 

 

My father was white, circumcised and 47 years old when he was diagnosed with penial cancer. :001_huh:

 

ETA: My father was always a clean man as well. I hate when people chalk up penile cancer to being unclean.

[Slartibartfast]

"well, penile cancer is rarely seen in anyone, really. There are about 280 deaths a year in the US from penile cancer. " Very good point, however, in terms of UTI, some STD and HIV it has been shown to be helpful in preventing these diseases to be circumcised. Perhaps it is also a hygeine/education component.

 

This is false.

 

 

Penile cancer: Is incredibly rare, so rare men are more likely to get breast cancer first! 1 in 1000 men develop breast cancer each year, while 1 in 100,000 develop penile cancer each year. While circumcision is a way to reduce your risk slightly, statistically guys should be more worried about getting mastectomies then circumcisions.

 

HIV/AIDS- “Many sources of data contradict the claim that circumcision protects against HIV. The United States has one of the highest rates of circumcision and HIV infection in the developed world. European nations, which rarely practice circumcision, have very low rates of HIV. Numerous regions in Africa show higher rates of HIV in circumcised populations compared to uncircumcised populations. For example, 2004 data from Lesotho show HIV infection of 15 percent for uncircumcised males and 23 percent for circumcised males. A 2007 study showed that, once commercial sex worker patterns were taken into consideration, circumcision status was irrelevant in HIV infection rates.”

 

 

http://organizedwisdom.com/Penile_Cancer

 

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/co....asp?sitearea=

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/200805.../prweb916104_1

http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/fu...93?cookieSet=1

http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/pd...469600.2.3.193

http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/ab...469600.2.3.193

 

There is no medical reason to circumcise.

 

I do not have a son, I am currently expecting one and he will NOT be circumcised

[elizabeth]

Oh my I am sorry to hear that. I do hope you know that the quotes in my post are words of another poster. I am just so sorry to hear that this has happened to such a young man. I am truly sorry if any of my words hurt you.

[elizabeth]

This is false.

 

 

Penile cancer: Is incredibly rare, so rare men are more likely to get breast cancer first! 1 in 1000 men develop breast cancer each year, while 1 in 100,000 develop penile cancer each year. While circumcision is a way to reduce your risk slightly, statistically guys should be more worried about getting mastectomies then circumcisions.

 

HIV/AIDS- “Many sources of data contradict the claim that circumcision protects against HIV. The United States has one of the highest rates of circumcision and HIV infection in the developed world. European nations, which rarely practice circumcision, have very low rates of HIV. Numerous regions in Africa show higher rates of HIV in circumcised populations compared to uncircumcised populations. For example, 2004 data from Lesotho show HIV infection of 15 percent for uncircumcised males and 23 percent for circumcised males. A 2007 study showed that, once commercial sex worker patterns were taken into consideration, circumcision status was irrelevant in HIV infection rates.â€

 

 

http://organizedwisdom.com/Penile_Cancer

 

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/co....asp?sitearea=

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/200805.../prweb916104_1

http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/fu...93?cookieSet=1

http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/pd...469600.2.3.193

http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/ab...469600.2.3.193

 

There is no medical reason to circumcise.

 

I do not have a son, I am currently expecting one and he will NOT be circumcised

 

http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/2007/mc_recommendations_en.pdf

[Slartibartfast]

http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/2007/mc_recommendations_en.pdf

 

Yes, I posted links refuting that study.

 

Oh man! The links don't work, let me grab things.

[5kidsforME]

Oh my I am sorry to hear that. I do hope you know that the quotes in my post are words of another poster. I am just so sorry to hear that this has happened to such a young man. I am truly sorry if any of my words hurt you.

 

I am not saying you in particular, it really is a general consensus.

 

I shoud have also added that my dads cancer started as a skin cancer (which is a slow moving cancer) but because he hated going to the Dr's and put it off it then went internally. Which we were told by his Dr.'s when skin cancer moves internally it is extremely aggressive. By the time they caught it it was in his lymph nodes. He died at 50 from all the complications of the cancer and all medical issues that followed.

 

And my dads biggest regret and hardest thing to get over was that he put his dislike over going to the Dr's over the value of his life.

[Slartibartfast]

 

 

 

 

Male Circumcision Ineffective in HIV Battle According to Future HIV Therapy Report

 

[elizabeth]

Many thanks for posting The first article in particular was excellent in presenting what data may have been skewed and how by ignoring other variables such as payment for the operation, behaviour, education regarding safe s** etc very interesting discussion and one I will enjoy continuing with a dear friend who served in the Peace Corps in Botswana for a lengthy time . We often discuss public health /policy initiatives and I will share this very interesting article with him as well. Thanks for sharing these with me. I appreciate the links very much and hope to learn more about this issue-it is devastating to deal with HIV at all but in third world countries it is truly h*ll on earth.

[Peek a Boo]

While circumcision is a way to reduce your risk slightly, statistically guys should be more worried about getting mastectomies then circumcisions.

 

I agree w/ the risk analysis wrt preventing penile cancer, but am not convinced that mastectomies are as safe/ safer than [or even comparable to] a circumcision. It's a different type of procedure and likely carries other risks.

[Slartibartfast]

I agree w/ the risk analysis wrt preventing penile cancer, but am not convinced that mastectomies are as safe/ safer than [or even comparable to] a circumcision. It's a different type of procedure and likely carries other risks.

 

I don't think it is medically appropriate to remove *any* body part "just in case"

[Peek a Boo]

I don't think it is medically appropriate to remove *any* body part "just in case"

 

I tend to agree with you: that's kinda where I stand on the issue of abortion.

 

 

but there are scores of people in the medical community that believe there ARE times where it is "medically appropriate" to lose a body part than risk something else. It is not necessarily MY opinion [see my first post], and you are certainly entitled to your opinion :)

[Slartibartfast]

I tend to agree with you: that's kinda where I stand on the issue of abortion.

 

 

but there are scores of people in the medical community that believe there ARE times where it is "medically appropriate" to lose a body part than risk something else. It is not necessarily MY opinion [see my first post], and you are certainly entitled to your opinion :)

 

I am not sure what that has to do with abortion.

 

The point was, men are at greater risk for breast cancer than penile cancer. Penile cancer is NOT a reason to circumcise.

[5kidsforME]

I am not sure what that has to do with abortion.

 

 

I won't speak for Peek but I would take that as, having an abortion JUST IN CASE you can not provide for it, JUST IN CASE it would ruin your life, JUST IN CASE the baby MIGHT have something medically wrong with it etc.

[Slartibartfast]

I won't speak for Peek but I would take that as, having an abortion JUST IN CASE you can not provide for it, JUST IN CASE it would ruin your life, JUST IN CASE the baby MIGHt have something medically worng with it etc.

 

I was referring to medical reasons.

 

I won't speak for other people but I refused genetic testing. What other people do isn't for me to decide.

 

I am opposed to routine circ. I won't argue religious circ.

[kalanamak]

 

 

but there are scores of people in the medical community that believe there ARE times where it is "medically appropriate" to lose a body part than risk something else. It is not necessarily MY opinion [see my first post], and you are certainly entitled to your opinion :)

 

Yes, at my age, if I needed a hyst for some reason, I'd ask my ovaries be removed at the same time. I've lost too many nice ladies to ovarian cancer in their later years.

[Peek a Boo]

I was referring to medical reasons.

 

I won't speak for other people but I refused genetic testing. What other people do isn't for me to decide.

 

I am opposed to routine circ. I won't argue religious circ.

 

what does abortion have to do w/ it? i was simply referring to the practice of removing things for non-medical reasons.

 

yeah, there are plenty of people who abort for possible health reasons. the risk to the baby and the mother *for them* is sometimes "too great."

 

There are also people who abort for what some would consider "routine" reasons.

 

Some minute risk of penile cancer would not be a reason for *you* to circumcise -- and that's fine. But it's still a matter of personal opinion, not medical appropriateness.

[Slartibartfast]

Some minute risk of penile cancer would not be a reason for *you* to circumcise -- and that's fine. But it's still a matter of personal opinion, not medical appropriateness.

 

I suppose whether or not it is medically appropriate is a matter of opinion.

 

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."

 

-- The American Academy of Pediatrics

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686

[Peek a Boo]

I suppose whether or not it is medically appropriate is a matter of opinion.

 

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686

 

exactly. That's what makes it such a family-to-family decision.

[Slartibartfast]

exactly. That's what makes it such a family-to-family decision.

 

If someone basis their medical decisions on opinion with absence of fact..well, I suppose.

 

Several studies

 

http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

[Peek a Boo]

If someone basis their medical decisions on opinion with absence of fact..well, I suppose.

 

Several studies

 

http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

 

except there IS no "absence of fact": your link to the AAP [and other links and other studies] shows that:

 

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.

 

 

that you want to DISMISS those potential benefits and possible risk factors is your choice, but it's not an "absence of medical fact."

[Slartibartfast]

except there IS no "absence of fact": your link to the AAP [and other links and other studies] shows that:

 

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.

 

 

that you want to DISMISS those potential benefits and possible risk factors is your choice, but it's not an "absence of medical fact."

 

Yeah, I am dismissing it, the AAP is saying it isn't good enough to recommend circ *for medical reasons*

 

"potential" and "possible" do not actually entail fact. They mean "Maybe" Of *course* I am dismissing it

 

There is NO medical reason to choose routine infant circumcision. People dance around because there are religious aspects to circumcision and those are genuine but there is no medical reason.

 

If you feel there is, then cite it, back up your statements.

[kailuamom]

I felt that since I had no frame of reference personally, I let my dh decide. He asked for the circ.

 

While I tried to provide information on both sides, I, too, let my dh make the ultimate decision for the same reason -- he was, shall we say, better equipped to make the call. ;)

[Slartibartfast]

I have an uncle that was a huge part of our lives when my sisters and I were children he spent a lot of time with us kids taking us to the park and movies and he was always around for us.

 

When I was older I found out he could never have kids, never have a normal relationship because he was injured during his circumcision.

 

I told my dh it wasn't an option.

[Peek a Boo]

Yeah, I am dismissing it, the AAP is saying it isn't good enough to recommend circ *for medical reasons*

 

"potential" and "possible" do not actually entail fact. They mean "Maybe" Of *course* I am dismissing it

 

There is NO medical reason to choose to circ. People dance around because there are religious aspects to circumcision and those are genuine but there is no medical reason.

 

If you feel there is, then cite it, back up your statements.

 

um, the AAP has already backed it up. you just don't like it.

 

if there was no FACT of it ever happening they couldn't say "potential" and "possible" based on SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE--the fact that there ARE cases of those risks occurring IS the fact. That's how you end up w/ RISK FACTORS. what do you think a risk factor is? If you never have sex, there is no risk in becoming pregnant [outside God, anyway ;)]. There are slim chances that ectopic pregnancies make it to term --the risk is greater that they will die. Risk factors come into play because the alternative has already happened. What evidence do you think they are referring to???

 

You are choosing to dismiss that these occurrences actually happened. You are choosing to dismiss something that HAS ALREADY happened. The AAP doesn't recommend *routine* circs-- that's a HUGE difference from saying that there is "absolutely" NO medical reason to circ.

[Slartibartfast]

um, the AAP has already backed it up. you just don't like it.

 

if there was no FACT of it ever happening they couldn't say "potential" and "possible" based on SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE--the fact that there ARE cases of those risks occurring IS the fact. That's how you end up w/ RISK FACTORS. what do you think a risk factor is? If you never have sex, there is no risk in becoming pregnant [outside God, anyway ;)]. There are slim chances that ectopic pregnancies make it to term --the risk is greater that they will die. Risk factors come into play because the alternative has already happened. What evidence do you think they are referring to???

 

You are choosing to dismiss that these occurrences actually happened. You are choosing to dismiss something that HAS ALREADY happened. The AAP doesn't recommend *routine* circs-- that's a HUGE difference from saying that there is "absolutely" NO medical reason to circ.

 

 

This discussion is about routine circumcision!!

[Peek a Boo]

I am talking about Routine Circ.

 

This whole discussion is about routine circ!!

 

uh, no... actually the "whole discussion" was about why each family chose to circ or not........

 

 

but you have said :

 

I don't think it is medically appropriate to remove *any* body part "just in case"

{we agreed this was your opinion}

 

 

Penile cancer is NOT a reason to circumcise.

{maybe not for YOU, but it is a medical risk}

 

I am opposed to routine circ. I won't argue religious circ.

 

...which still leaves not-necessarily-routine circs where each family/doctors decide that it would be the medically best situation for that child......

[Slartibartfast]

uh, no... actually the "whole discussion" was about why each family chose to circ or not........

 

Here is the OP

 

Do you or don't you circumcise your boys? If you do is it for religious reasons or medical? We have not had any of our boys circumcised. Nothing religious...just didn't see a need. For some reason, after Jesse was born, I started thinking about the subject again and wondered if we are doing the right thing. Is there any compelling medical reason to have a boy circumcised? What about the social aspect? I mean, what about when the boy grows up and gets married and, well, becomes "active"? Would it work any differently? Don't laugh at me...I'm really concerned about this. What if his wife is freaked out by it? I'm probably just being overly paranoid, but I had to ask. Do you or don't you and why? Don't want to create any big arguments or anything...I was just curious.

 

She is expressing concern regarding her decision not to circumcise. She wants information regarding it.

 

I was providing links and more information.

 

 

 

 

but you have said :

 

I don't think it is medically appropriate to remove *any* body part "just in case"

{we agreed this was your opinion}

 

 

And the opinion of the AAP, again, this means for NO REASON, not an actual real medical issue. This would be similar to removing an appendix "just in case" or removing a gallbladder "just in case"

 

It would NOT be the same as removing an appendix when one has appendicitis

 

 

Penile cancer is NOT a reason to circumcise.

{maybe not for YOU, but it is a medical risk}

When weighed against possible injury, trauma and death that is a risk factor of circumcision?

 

 

I am opposed to routine circ. I won't argue religious circ.

 

...which still leaves not-necessarily-routine circs where each family/doctors decide that it would be the medically best situation for that child......

Which isn't RIC and not an aspect of this discussion.

 

The OP asked for compelling medical information

 

I don't consider what you are arguing to be "compelling" medical information, which the OP requested.

 

You are pushing and debating over *negligible* statistics, which, IMO isn't what the OP asked and it isn't helpful to the OP.

[Peek a Boo]

You're going to have to clarify on what you think the AAP means -- they have stated that they don't recommend ROUTINE circs. They have stated there are medical reasons FOR a circ, including the "just in case [of cancer or other possible problem]" risk factors that different families may be prone to. That does NOT mean "for no reason." "plenty of people [including myself] have offered info supporting NOT circumcising.

 

When weighed against possible injury, trauma and death that is a risk factor of circumcision?

So would you like to define "possible" differently here??

or stick w/....

 

"potential" and "possible" do not actually entail fact. They mean "Maybe" Of *course* I am dismissing it

 

 

My whole point is that there ARE real medical possibilities --on both sides-- to consider as risks of circ'ing or not circ'ing.

 

It was my understanding per OP that the entire topic of circumcision was game. TWICE she asked "do you or don't you and why?" We have 5 pages of information and opinion detailing the medical and religious reasons for and against circumcision.

[Slartibartfast]

You're going to have to clarify on what you think the AAP means -- they have stated that they don't recommend ROUTINE circs. They have stated there are medical reasons FOR a circ, including the "just in case [of cancer or other possible problem]" risk factors that different families may be prone to. That does NOT mean "for no reason." "plenty of people [including myself] have offered info supporting NOT circumcising.

 

When weighed against possible injury, trauma and death that is a risk factor of circumcision?

So would you like to define "possible" differently here??

or stick w/....

 

"potential" and "possible" do not actually entail fact. They mean "Maybe" Of *course* I am dismissing it

 

 

My whole point is that there ARE real medical possibilities --on both sides-- to consider as risks of circ'ing or not circ'ing.

 

It was my understanding per OP that the entire topic of circumcision was game. TWICE she asked "do you or don't you and why?" We have 5 pages of information and opinion detailing the medical and religious reasons for and against circumcision.

 

And MY point is that none of those are what I would consider compelling

 

If you *really* want me to go into detail on risk analysis I can however it really seems to me you are just arguing to argue

[Peek a Boo]

The OP asked for compelling medical information

 

I don't consider what you are arguing to be "compelling" medical information, which the OP requested.

 

You are pushing and debating over *negligible* statistics, which, IMO isn't what the OP asked and it isn't helpful to the OP.

 

...and again: compelling is in the eye of the beholder and varies for each family. Family history plays a big part in what direction the medical community advises one to take. YOU might not consider it compelling. Others might.

 

If you don't think it's worth discussing, that's fine too. I happen to think that opinion being presented as universal fact for each family warrants a deeper look. That's what opinion is all about :)

 

have a good week--

[Slartibartfast]

An annual penile cancer rate of 0.9 to 1.0 per 100 000 translates to 9 to 10 cases of penile cancer per year per 1 million men. Although the risk of developing penile cancer in an uncircumcised man compared with a circumcised man is increased more than threefold, it is difficult to estimate accurately the magnitude of this risk based on existing studies. Nevertheless, in a developed country such as the United States, penile cancer is a rare disease and the risk of penile cancer developing in an uncircumcised man, although increased compared with a circumcised man, is low.

Being in a developed country does have an effect on penile cancer rates.

 

In fact, the statistics between Denmark and the US are fairly similar...which is odd because Denmark and a MUCH lower circumcision rate than the US and in the US the rates are HIGHER than Denmark

 

0.82 per 100 000 in Denmark

0.9 to 1.0 per 100 000 males in the United States.

 

compared to

 

and 2.0 to 10.5 per 100 000 in India.

 

So...do these statistics look weird to just me?

 

 

 

 

Some authors have reported a complication rate as low as 0.06 per cent13, while at the other extreme rates of up to 55 per cent14 have been quoted. This reflects the differing and varying diagnostic criteria employed; a realistic figure is 2-10 per cent3,12,15. Although haemorrhage and sepsis are the main causes of morbidity, the variety of complications is enormous. The literature abounds with reports of morbidity and even death as a result of circumcision.

 

 

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/williams-kapila/

[Peek a Boo]

So...do these statistics look weird to just me?

 

 

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/williams-kapila/

 

nobody's saying that the stats aren't low, just that each family has different variables that will affect whether it's COMPELLING enough for them.

[Slartibartfast]

nobody's saying that the stats aren't low, just that each family has different variables that will affect whether it's COMPELLING enough for them.

 

 

If there is a familial variable then it isn't routine now is it?

 

 

I was only talking about RIC.

 

PLease stop trying to imply I am arguing against medical circ.

[Peek a Boo]

If there is a familial variable then it isn't routine now is it?

 

 

I was only talking about RIC.

 

PLease stop trying to imply I am arguing against medical circ.

 

i didn't say anything about arguing for a routine medical circ.

You were the one that brought it up.

I have consistently argued that each family can decide what medical reasons are compelling enough for them.

You were the one that said you didn't believe there was compelling medical reason for a circumcision. or to quote: "There is no medical reason to circumcise." i wanted to double check the qualifiers on that statement, cuz it seemed like a pretty blanket statement to me.

 

So now you are saying that you don't have a problem w/ religious circs, and you don't have a problem w/ each family deciding whether to do a medical circ based on risks that they and their doctors may deem medically appropriate for their own family, you only have a problem w/ routine medical circs? is that correct?

[Slartibartfast]

i didn't say anything about arguing for a routine medical circ.

You were the one that brought it up.

I have consistently argued that each family can decide what medical reasons are compelling enough for them.

You were the one that said you didn't believe there was compelling medical reason for a circumcision. or to quote: "There is no medical reason to circumcise." i wanted to double check the qualifiers on that statement, cuz it seemed like a pretty blanket statement to me.

 

So now you are saying that you don't have a problem w/ religious circs, and you don't have a problem w/ each family deciding whether to do a medical circ based on risks that they and their doctors may deem medically appropriate for their own family, you only have a problem w/ routine medical circs? is that correct?

 

I stated MANY posts ago that I wouldn't debate religious circ, there is "so now" about it.

 

I stated multiple times that I was referring ONLY to routine circumcision.

 

You aren't even reading my posts.

 

I am adding you to my ignore list. I don't need to be harassed, I am 9 months pregnant and you are COMPLETELY misconstruing my posts. I am not going to discuss a topic with someone who is misrepresenting my posts and putting words in my mouth.

[Peek a Boo]

I stated MANY posts ago that I wouldn't debate religious circ, there is "so now" about it.

 

I stated multiple times that I was referring ONLY to routine circumcision.

 

You aren't even reading my posts.

 

I am adding you to my ignore list. I don't need to be harassed, I am 9 months pregnant and you are COMPLETELY misconstruing my posts. I am not going to discuss a topic with someone who is misrepresenting my posts and putting words in my mouth.

 

i can appreciate being 9 months pregnant [and feeling like it's 20], but nobody is harassing you --it's a message board discussion.

there are three situations of circs involved, and you don't want to clarify about one of them.

you aren't going to answer about non-routine medical circs. okie dokie.

that's not ME putting words in your mouth.

[Spy Car]

A brand-new Dad here, if you don't mind my perspective I'll try to tread lightly.

 

While I fully respect any parents right to make an informed decision for their child, it does trouble me much of the information regarding circumcision is presented in way that distorts the truth, and undermines a parents ability to make an reasoned decision on the matter.

 

Case in point. Many anti-circumcision advocates and web sites make the claim that circumcision is a highly painful procedure that is likely to cause unending trauma to young boys. This claim is nonsense. Done by a competent physician with the aid of a local anesthetic the procedure is painless. I know, as I witnessed the circumcision of my son. Not only were there no tears, there wasn't a whimper or even a flinch. In short it was a "trauma-free" non-event.

 

If you don't have a competent physician who can perform a circumcision with a local anesthetic, just don't do it. But this should not be difficult. Just as it's not difficult to find a dentist who uses Novocain before drilling teeth. You don't boycott dentistry because some incompetent dentist at one time inflicted pain on a patient.

 

And there are many upsides to having the fore-skin removed. Basic hygiene is possible, but much more difficult, with an intact fore-skin. Uncircumcised boys are much more prone to potentially serious Urinary Tract infections, where circumcised boys almost never have this problem.

 

Penile cancer has been discussed. While it is rare in uncircumcised men, it is virtually unheard of in circumcised men. What I didn't see mentioned (but forgive me if I missed it) is that what causes penile cancer is HPV. The mucus membranes of the fore-skin are an easy entry point for this virus (and other STDs), and while HPV may cause relatively few cancers in men, if passed on to women the result can be devastating cervical cancer. By circumcising boys we protect not only them, we also protect our daughters.

 

The multiple AIDS studies in Africa seem sound to me and I must have some faith that the scientists and physicians of the World Health Organization are trying to make an honest assessment of the value of circumcision in reducing the risk of contracting this disease. The "de-bunkers" have put forward no compelling evidence to the contrary in my judgement, and frankly seem more driven by ideology than science.

 

With the fore-skin being such a conducive entry point for disease it is entirely understandable to me why from a medical standpoint uncircumcised men have higher rates of many STDs.

 

Further the presence of off-putting and foul-smelling smegma significantly reduces the variety of experiences the uncircumcised man is liable to regularly enjoy. I hope that was delicate enough.

 

For a host of reasons I'm very grateful my parents circumcised me, and I trust my son will feel the same. The only boys and men I've ever known who had a problem with their condition were uncircumcised boys and men. True some of this is societal pressure that is changing to some degree as more boys are not circumcised. i just know my best friend growing up was uncircumcised and he was quite unhappy with the situation and particularly disliked the feeling of uncleanliness.

 

When I read comments that "if they aren't happy they can always have surgery later" I really do wonder if people know what major surgery this is in adulthood. It really is a big deal, and not one many men would dare face no matter how much they desired a change.

 

I strongly believe circumcision is a positive on many levels. And I respect those who decide other-wise. i just wish the tenor of the discussion wasn't so falsely contorted by those out to portray circumcision as some sort of painful and barbaric mutilation of infants.

 

Peace,

Bill

[Spy Car]

Point of clarification. I'm a brand new Dad here...as in "here" on TWTM web-site.

 

My son William will be 4 in July. I do appreciate the PMs extending congratulations on my being a new Dad. I do feel blessed to be a father. And in many ways every day is new.

 

Bill

[summer]

I circumcize. There are medical reasons to circumcize, but I do not think they are so strong to make it worth doing if you are against it. Personally, while I am adament about circumcising all my children, I would never advise anyone either way as it is each individual person's choices. I generally do not state the exact reasons I circumcise because there will always be someone out there wanting to argue my reasons and I am just not willing to change or budge or even argue it. It is a non-issue and my decision for my son.

[Mrs Mungo]

Okay, here is the type of thread the oldies don't like to see bumped.

 

1. It is 2 1/2 years old.

2. It is a highly contentious thread.

3. One of the main players in the thread is banned.

4. It was bumped by someone with 8 posts.

5. The same person bumped several old threads.

 

Troll? Someone post-padding? A clueless newb? One wonders. Ahhhh...the sig line, it is a spammer.

Edited October 16, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[RhondaM.]

I liken it to cutting off girls' breasts so they won't get breast cancer,

 

I am SO not a confrontational person and whether or not parents choose to circumcise their boys or not is none of my business and not anything I care to worry about.

 

BUT...as a breast cancer survivor who had a bilateral mastectomy and who is now nearly completely numb in that area....I don't see how anyone could liken it to a male circumcision. Believe me, my circumcised husband is not numb and unfeeling in that area.

 

And I'm sure you didn't mean it exactly as I'm taking it....

 

But I'm probably a little extra sensitive about this. So...don't mind me...carry on...;)

 

RhondaM. (taking time at 4am to put her foot in her mouth)