Hm, I got stuck on an argument point - Page 2

[mom2tatum]

Originally Posted by Pirogi

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.

yes.

[A&A]

Using that friend's logic, she'd cut off her dd's breast tissue so they don't get breast cancer.

[K703]

Originally Posted by SpiderMum

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.

Well, some of the circ supporters 80 years ago (when it was starting to become commonplace in America) probably hoped that by now foreskins (other than on newborns that hadn't yet been cut) would be a rarity.

[jenP]

Originally Posted by 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.

This.

All of the other arguments are very good, but this one really focuses on specifically what is wrong with your friend's comparison. We make decisions that affect our children's future, but only the decisions that HAVE to made NOW, before the child can make the decision for herself or himself.
For instance, vaccines have some risks and some benefits. They are intended to protect from diseases the baby can get NOW, before he or she is old enough to decide. Therefore, the parents must weigh the pros and cons and make the decision for the child, whether to vaccinate or not or partially.
And of course, as Crunchy Frog pointed out, the baby has to eat NOW, sleep NOW, have some form of education while still a child, etc. Parents can't put of those decisions. But circumcision to prevent infections in an 80-year old? Well, first of all I highly doubt that foreskins cause infections in old men, but just for the sake of argument let's say they do. You could get the same benefit by circumcising at virtually any age that is younger than the age where these infections are expected to become so frequent and bothersome. Therefore, the decision does NOT need to be made during infancy or childhood, therefore the decision does NOT belong to the parents.

Jen

[jenP]

Originally Posted by A&A

Using that friend's logic, she'd cut off her dd's breast tissue so they don't get breast cancer.

and her son's. Men are more likely to get breast cancer than penis cancer, after all.

[Smokering]

Yes, parents make decisions based on future good a lot. Mostly these future goods are in line with present goods - a healthy diet benefits a child immediately as well as long-term, because the alternative are malnutrition, sugar highs and crashes, upset tummies and so on. Breastfeeding, as we all know, has immediate as well as future benefits. And from an AP standpoint, we tend to be against doing harmful things for future good. Even assuming CIO will result in a happy, sleep-trained child (which we don't grant, obviously), we don't do it because we believe it's inherently wrong in the short-term. As a general rule, the more obvious the immediate harm, the more definite and consequential the future good must be. So we'd put a child through painful heart surgery to give her an extra 60 years of life; that would be considered worth it.

But to do something as obviously destructive in the immediate as circing - pain, jeaopardising the nursing relationship, the risk of infection from the open wound, etc - for such an uncertain future good as maybe getting a treatable infection 80 years down the track? It just doesn't compute. To compare it to breastfeeding is absolutely bizarre.

[swd12422]

I dunno.... Personally, I'd rather keep all my body parts and have the best sex life I can have all my life, and then die from an infection or from anesthesia when I'm 80 rather than have my genitals cut against my will as a newborn and go through life mutilated. But that's just me.

Besides, they don't put newborns under for the surgery, why put an 80 year old under for the same surgery? That raises a whole other argument against due to cruelty. If a grown man needs general anesthesia for the procedure b/c it's too painful to endure under a local, why on earth would anyone think it's okay to do to a baby??

[jenP]

Originally Posted by swd12422

I dunno.... Personally, I'd rather keep all my body parts and have the best sex life I can have all my life, and then die from an infection or from anesthesia when I'm 80 rather than have my genitals cut against my will as a newborn and go through life mutilated. But that's just me.

!!!!!

Originally Posted by swd12422

If a grown man needs general anesthesia for the procedure b/c it's too painful to endure under a local, why on earth would anyone think it's okay to do to a baby??

Why indeed?? Of course, the "answer" is that anesthesia is risky and unhealthy for babies, so they don't use it. Which is completely logical, of course: since the anesthesia is risky and unhealthy, we will just go ahead and do the risky and unhealthy and completely unnecessary surgery, but out of concern for the baby's health we'll skip the anesthesia. Yep, totally logical - and all to prevent the 1:16,000 chance that 50 to 80 years down the road he'll need to have it done (with anesthesia.)
But somehow intactivists are the crazy ones?

Jen

[Arduinna]

Originally Posted by 2boyzmama

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."

none of those involve cutting off a perfectly normal and functioning body part of a non consenting infant. Really, she is equating genital cutting to BFing and diet?

I'd have looked at her like she had 3 heads.


Is she advocating preventative mastectomy also? Has she done it to herself?

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by 2boyzmama

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."

1) I'd like to see this research. If it even exists, I'd like to know if it allows for the number of intact babies who have their penises brutalized by "experts" who insist they have to be able to retract at age two or three, or whatever arbitrary cutoff they dream up.

2) She's right. I do many things with my children's future health in mind. However, there is always a risk/benefit analysis involved. A risk - admittedly rare, but real - of circ is death. I see no risk in breastfeeding. I see no risk in limiting junk food. I see no risk in encouraging exercise. (Okay - I see some risk in the latter - increased possibility of bumps, bruises, or even a broken bone. But, the risk/benefit analysis of bumps or bruises vs. massively increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, etc. comes out hugely in favour of exercise.) The risks (meatal stenosis, painful erections, complications requiring re-circ, death, etc.) simply drown the potential benefit of "he may get fewer infections when he's old".

3) This is the only surgery people in our culture routinely perform on a healthy body part, due to a possible increase in a minor problem much, much later in life. By this logic, we should remove the breasts of little girls, the prostates of little boys, and the appendices of both sexes, because breast cancer, prostate cancer and appendicitis are all much bigger deals than minor penile/foreskin infections. But, nobody would do that, because we just don't go around removing healthy, functioning body parts, just in case they may have problems later.

4)

[HeatherRD]

Originally Posted by jess_paez

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.

Can you provide a source for this? Might be a good thing to show my friend who is circ'ing in part for health reasons.

Thanks!

[Pirogi]

Originally Posted by HeatherRD

Can you provide a source for this? Might be a good thing to show my friend who is circ'ing in part for health reasons.

Thanks!

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...=thymos&page=2

[shanniesue2]

I've heard that people without teeth are less likely to have dental problems as they get older. I've been thinking about asking my son's dentist to pull his adult teeth as soon as they come in...