"No Medical Benefits"? - Page 5

[SaveTheWild]

Originally posted by somemama
PS to STW, why don't you just continue researching/ thinking and let us know what you decide?

Will do.

Regarding your original question, I think you will find that any supposed benefits are exaggerated (at best) and not worth putting your son through all of the risks. Because there are lots of very real risks associated with circ'ing!!

I expect the very same thing.

Peace. Out.


PS to PumpkinSeeds-- Yep, gotta continue my research on the Vax issue too, and I am going about it the same way. There is so much to do!

[Sarah]

"i think that it is important to find out all the information you can and become as educated as possible about making any decision that could affect your child. "

Once again... the presumption that this is a decision that belongs to you... your imbedded inescapable BIAS from circumcisionculture. Do you think you have a right to cut off or research any other body part- or do you think that it would be criminally wounding a person.. you feel no obligation to research the removal of any other body part except this one... doesn't that put up a little flag that something different is happening here? Why the genitals?

Why the genitals? think think think....

Other parents DON'T feel the need to research this...oher parents just give birth to their babies wihout this IDEA that there is a piece of their child's body they maybe should cut off. Parents from really advanced nations... the people who make Volvos... the people who give out the Nobel prize... the people who designed the Chunnel... not cavemen- but smart caring parents- this does not even make a BLIP on their radar as a possibility... yet you have this audacity that you have this great burden to go out and research if your son should keep all of his sex organ...

"If you are actually offended by or disagree with that concept, I am truly surprised. "

Go ahead and do all the research you want- I'm not gong to stop you- in fact I will help if it makes you feel better... it doesn't make it any less insulting... like way back in 1969 when my dad was researching if he should cut off my clitoris... he found this one study that said I had a 1% chance of getting a uti in my first year of life if I has a clitoris... and he decided that it wasn't worth it... I found out later that there was this bogus study that had been published in 1967 that said there was a WHOPPING 4% chance that I get a UTI... boy am I glad they didn't have the internet back then- because if my dad had seen that OTHER study- he might have been convinced that cutting out my clitoris was in my best interest!

So I'm curious... when you go at the research without knowing the value of the errogenous anatomy... where is the fulcrum on the scale when you get the various stats? What % of uti perventitive benefit would tip YOUR SCALE from (alleged) bias toward intact to bias toward circumcision... there must be a number right? Whats the point of digging up all the numbers if you can't apply them? You must have a plan... what is it? How do you construct the cost benefit model if you don't know the anatomy and you don't acknowledge a human's basic right to posess all of their sexual anatomy. If you can't acknowledge that- it would be like letting people who can't acknowledge the rights of all humans design the analysis of the appropriateness of abolition. There is a broken piece in the model.

The entire premise of this research undertaking is that your son's right to his whole sex organ is something that might be overridden by statistical analysis.

Hmmm.

Why the genitals?

Love Sarah

[Sarah]

Somemama- I live at the KY, IN, OH tristate... my husband was circumcised (without any parental consent) in Ohio. My picking on Ohio was not scorn- it was simply a place where the circ rate is high and a girl would likely have little interaction with people who had not circumcised or who were not circumcised (thanks to the blanket policy of circumcising all boys born in Ohio hospitals decades ago) ... a person to whom the presentation of material against circumcision might come as totally out of left field... a person who had never for a second even considered not circumcising... not because she was dumb... just because that was the world she was in.

As for the book not providing "answers" (you mean directions?)... that's why I liked it- Gollaher doesn't take a stance- he just explains the history... it's up to you if you want to join the hisorical picture of humans fixating on the genitals of their children and cutting them for whatever reason is popular in their century/continent.


Love Sarah

[AnnMarie]

Originally posted by SaveTheWild
Just because other people do it or don't do it isn't enough.

I agree. Every male being born with one is.

[AnnMarie]

Originally posted by ~Jenna~
What I'm getting at is that if male circ is okay and needs to be researched then female circ should be the same. If one wouldn't dream of circ'ing their daughter then I can't figure out why you need to look into for your son.

As well as researching cutting off the fingernails, toes, fingers, ears, and every other body part. Makes just as much sense as researching cutting off part of the penis.

[mattemma04]

//

[somemama]

Originally posted by ~Jenna~
Also I don't like STW's implications that we just went along with other's commentaries that we didn't do the research for ourselves just because some of us here say there are no benefits. I mean, this is the Case AGAINST Circumcision - so it is obviously that some of us are going to think there are NO benefits. I just don't understand why she was suprised some of us feel that way.

somemama - I can see where you are coming from though.

I don't think it's wrong to ask the question of how much research we did. I think the question stems more from curiosity than from criticism.