Hm, I got stuck on an argument point

[2boyzmama]

I was discussing circumcision with a friend regarding circumcision. She is not of childbearing years, and she only had girls, so this is moot for her, but of course she stands in a position to influence her girls.

Her sister is a dr who just had a baby boy. Her sister was researching circ and she said the deciding factor was "new evidence showing increased rate of infection in older men who are intact."

I said "I don't think that the potential for infection 80 years in the future has any bearing on my newborn son's foreskin." A good counter, right?

My friend said "well you do lots of things with your son's future health in mind, you eat certain foods when pregnant, you breastfeed, you feed him certain foods as a child, you control his exposures to certain chemicals, etc. So of course you make decisions now based on your son's future health, that's your job as parent."

I then switched my argument to the fact that older women have many infections as well, but we don't choose to alter our newborn girls to prevent those.

The discussion kind of fizzled out then (she got a phone call, and we both had to get to work anyway), it didn't end in an uncomfortable or controversial way at all, but I just feel that it was left with the "score" too much in favor of circ. I will be seeing this friend in two weeks and will have time to debate in person any number of topics. I love debating with her, she's very much in a mentor position, someone I really respect, but she also really respects my unique perspective as a mother in my generation vs what it was like in her generation. So even though topics like circ and vaccines and breastfeeding dont' directly impact her, she still enjoys discussing them with me. And like I said, she does have girls that will likely have children eventually, so she is in a position to influence them.

Anyway...help me out with the argument that parents do things all the time that directly impact the future health of their children. While that is true, I think this is one health issue that truly can wait until they are older adults to make the decision. Although the counter to that is older men don't heal well or handle anesthesia well, so circ at that age is risky. Of course it's likely the way Western medicine cares for older intact men that contributes to the increase in infections (over cleaning perhaps). And still the argument that women suffer just as many infections is a valid one (does anyone have a link to that by the way? It seems logical to me, but I would like a link to support that argument)

[Pumpkinheadmommy]

She's completely ignoring the benefits of having a foreskin for those 80+ years. If someone told me right now that I risked having clitoral infections in about 40 years because I still have a clitoris I'd say "thanks, but I think I'll risk it."

Also, I would ask to see the research. I haven't heard of anything like this.

[Pirogi]

Originally Posted by 2boyzmama

While that is true, I think this is one health issue that truly can wait until they are older adults to make the decision. Although the counter to that is older men don't heal well or handle anesthesia well, so circ at that age is risky. Of course it's likely the way Western medicine cares for older intact men that contributes to the increase in infections (over cleaning perhaps). And still the argument that women suffer just as many infections is a valid one (does anyone have a link to that by the way? It seems logical to me, but I would like a link to support that argument)

This is the crux of the issue for me. If an older man, or a middle age man, or a younger adult man, decides to get circumcised based on concerns over infection in old age, then that is completely valid. It would be his choice. To make the decision to circumcise an infant based on what *might* happen in 80 years is ridiculous to me.

Does your friend know about the protective/functional/pleasurable aspects of an intact penis? Infant circumcision for this reason ignores the substantial benefits of an intact penis in favor of a possibility of a problem later.

Also, what if the person dies at a young age? There is no guarantee that a person will live to be 80 or 60 or 10 (just like there is no guarantee that a person will develop problems with an intact foreskin if they do live to old age).

The human rights violation is a good point for this argument as well. Yes, we make decisions in an attempt to increase the likelihood of good health for our children every day. But eating/feeding a healthful diet, or avoiding chemicals, etc do not deprive a child of anything that also has a beneficial aspect. Circumcision removes healthy, functional genital tissue, without consent. It is a human rights violation, even if some people believe that there might be a slight chance of improvement for some health aspects.

[MommytoB]

Those infections are Treatable because I know Yeast Issues can Be More Commen in Older Age due to Skin Thinning and to add on to Diabetes can Increase the Yeast Rate.

I known people who lost a toe, foot and legs to Gangrene either due to infection or due to the condition of diabetes.

Also, a poor little 2 yr old girl had Her Legs for 2 yrs until she lost them due to a lawn mowing incident !!

My grandpa had his legs still and they were not working but I bet he was glad he still had them even if he couldn't use them plus I bet he was grateful for the Chance He was able to use them.

[outlier]

Using your friend's logic, shouldn't we all run out and get our appendixes removed before we reach old age? I would think the longer an individual lives, the greater the chance he/she will come down with appendicitis. Since older people don't handle anesthesia as well as younger people and may not heal the same, it's only logical that we should elect to have this surgery as young as possible.

Or, this is just another case of wanting to guarantee that the majority will suffer to avert the (usually treatable) suffering of a small minority of people. Whenever I hear about someone needing an appendectomy, for some reason my reaction is not, "Oh, crap! I should run out and get one too! I sure wish I'd had one when I was too young to remember it."; it's more like, "Oh, how unlucky. I hope that never happens to me."

[kiara7]

Humans can get infections/diseases in many different body parts. Women and men can get breast cancer, we don't remove newborn girls breast buds. Cervical cancer- we don't perform hysterectomies on newborn girls. Toe infections, ear infections, lung cancer, the list goes on. We don't prophylactically remove any body parts, except for foreskin?

[MoonJelly]

How dare all these older people get infections and become such burdens on the health care providers who are paid to help them?

I mean seriously, humans get sick and they get infections in places. And people also become unable to bathe as well as us younger or healthier folks. That's just life and there are people who have gone into the field of caring for these people who deserve to be cared for no matter if they have all their body parts or not.

It's too bad that some of these health care providers are so susceptible to the power of suggestion that the only thing they can think to complain about is a male patient's foreskin.

No one deserves to have their sexual organs damaged for their entire life, especially not for some random person's job satisfaction 80 years later.

That's what I would say.

[nd_deadhead]

Might as well get your baby glasses too. Not corrective lenses - those aren't needed yet - but since most people need reading glasses by the time they're 50 or so, you might as well get glasses for the baby, so she gets used to it.

There are two problems with your friend's argument. One has been made already - the foreskin is an integral part of the penis, not a "spare part". Removing it changes the whole way the foreskin functions, even without complications.

But even more important is the fact that circumcision is an operation - not just a little procedure, like removing a wart or cutting toenails. Every operation carries risks, and in the case of circumcision, the risks include hemmorage, infection, meatal stenosis, adhesions, and sometimes death.

It makes no sense whatsoever to put a normal, healthy infant at risk of circumcision complications, on the slight chance of reducing the risk of a treatable infection 80 years from now.

It never ceases to amaze me that people who are dead set on circumcising their babies to slightly reduce their risk of minor, treatable, or very rare diseases have NO concern for the much greater risk of surgical complications. I want to reduce my son's risk of staph infection, bleeding, adhesions, meatal stenosis, amputation of part of the glans, painful erections caused by the removal of too much foreskin - all I have to do is leave his penis alone.

[MoonJelly]

The other thing is that her examples of preventative measures are not equivalent to removing the foreskin to prevent infection namely because they do not harm the child now in order to help later. Circumcision violates the rule of "First Do No Harm."

[eepster]

Circ and a healthy diet are very poor comparisons. Yes, a healthy diet is done in part for benefits that your DC will enjoy when they are in their 80s, but that is where the comparison begins and ends (and personally, I'm not really convinced about the benefit of being circ for men in their 80s, my dad is in his 80s and pretty healthy, though we don't specifically discuss that part of him.)

There are not only theoretical far off future benefits to a healthy diet, there are concrete benefits right now. A well feed child is energetic, has a strong immune system, grows properly, focuses in school, etc.

There are no inherent risks to a well balanced healthy diet. There are a slew of surgical risks associated with circ.

There are no long term side effects from a healthy diet. There are a number with circ, the most common being adhesions and meatal stenosis.

A well balanced healthy diet (as long as it's not taken to extremes) is not unpleasant. Circ is excruciatingly painful and deprives a boy of a functional part of his penis.

[SpiderMum]

I would remind her that yes, a child MIGHT get an infection in 80 years....but they might also DIE from being circed as an infant. Infections can be treated...death...well not so much.

[hakunangovi]

Originally Posted by 2boyzmama

Her sister was researching circ and she said the deciding factor was "new evidence showing increased rate of infection in older men who are intact."

I think her sister is misinformed, and if that statistic is true, then I would suggest that it is due to substandard care. In any case , an infection anywhere else on the body is treated with antibiotics. Why not a foreskin? There is a statistic out there that states that in Finland, only one man in 16,000 will die without his foreskin - that hardly makes foreskins the ticking time bomb of infection that North American doctors would have you believe!!

I agree with all the points made previously by other posters : That circumcision deprives that person of a totaly full sex life. That it is a violation of their human rights. That it carries some serious risks including loss of their penis and death. That it makes no sense that a foreskin is the ONLY body part that is removed for prophylactic considerations.

I look forward to hearing the details of the continuation of your debate !!

[sleet76]

I think this falls in line with the "circumcision reduces penile cancer" argument. The most logical (to me) argument to counter this is to mention that of course we are less likely to get and infection/cancer of a body part/organ that has been removed. It isn't there to get infected or to develop cancer. But that there aren't any other body party that we remove "just in case". We would probably want to remove women's breasts at birth to prevent cancer and all babies' tonsils and adenoids to prevent infection. Not to mention appendixes.

[jess_paez]

Originally Posted by SpiderMum

I would remind her that yes, a child MIGHT get an infection in 80 years....but they might also DIE from being circed as an infant. Infections can be treated...death...well not so much.

THIS! and this from peaceful parenting-The reality is that today more baby boys die from circumcision surgery each year in the United States than from choking, from auto accidents, from suffocation, from SIDS, and from the (newly recalled) sleep positioners.

[Crunchy Frog]

You make decisions for them that you have to make now. You have to eat when you're pregnant. You have to feed your babies something. These things have to be done now and have an immediate bearing on your child's health. A baby that's not breastfed now can't make a decision to have been breastfed 30 years from now.

Parents do not make decisions about altering their children's normal healthy body parts for the sake of possible benefits in the far distant future. Cutting off the foreskin is the only such modification that parents are allowed to make for their children in our society, and there are lots of possible modifications that would make a whole lot more sense; like mastectomies for baby girls, or labia removal, or removal of toenails (geriatric toenails are a HELL of a lot more problematic than geriatric foreskins).

Circ is NOT like those other things that we do for our children's future health. It removes a healthy normal body part and it removes the child's future options with respect to his own body.

Your friend's arguement is completely bogus as it's comparing apples and oranges.

[BugMacGee]

What about the immediate risk of a surgical wound in a diaper full of poo? Do people not register this?

[PlainandTall]

#1 80 years from now... how do you think infections will be treated?
#2 all of the above replies are awesome


and lastly... I've been paying close attention to this circumcision thing for over a decade and I am not aware of any RECENT (or old) study that says anything about geriatric care and differences between circumcised and intact patients in regards to infections (what kind of infections?... or are these just like cooties?) . It's possible that something was published in a small journal and got no press, I could have missed it, but usually, even if I don't have subscribers access to a medical journal article- you are least hear about them and see the abstracts. The foundation of her "point" is VERY SUSPICIOUS to me and if you want to discuss this further I think you should call her on the phone and tell her that you are very interested in reading that study she told you about and ask her where you can find it. If such a study does exist, it would be good to read (it still doesn't make a case for circumcision even if it did say what she says it does) ... so really it's a win win.

[emnic77]

That's just a bad argument. We don't cut off any other parts of people on the chance they might get an infection in that part someday.

No one deserves to have their sexual organs damaged for their entire life, especially not for some random person's job satisfaction 80 years later.

Perfectly said.

[2boyzmama]

You guys are awesome

Of course I know all the arguments you countered with, but it was the way she phrased it that caught me off guard.

I'll be sure to report back if she and I get a chance to discuss it when she visits!

[SpiderMum]

Originally Posted by PlainandTall

#1 80 years from now... how do you think infections will be treated?

This is a very good point...how will things be in 80 years? Well...how were things 80 years ago? Medical science has come a LONNNNNG way. I'm imagining that in 80 years an infected foreskin is not going to be a big deal AT ALL....not that it even is now.