or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › OMG - AAP says circumcision benefits outweigh the risks?!?!!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

OMG - AAP says circumcision benefits outweigh the risks?!?!!! - Page 5

post #81 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by K703 View Post

What you're hinting at could very well happen in the future - especially once boys born after the FGM ban start to turn 18 and thus would have standing in court - someone sues the government on the basis of unequal protection. If the case ever goes up to the Supreme Court it will be interesting to see how it turns out. The downside may be, like a poll in this thread of mine suggests, that because (male) circumcision is so enshrined in our culture that Congress would rather lift the FGM ban rather than ban MGM if the courts rule that they must treat the sexes equally in this regard. (Some religious groups might try to claim it's justified under the 1st Amendment, but freedom of religion does not apply once you force it on others.)


ITA!  The ethical question is what other body parts can parents consent to the amputation of without immediate therapeutic concern?  I have an awful history of ingrown toenails and no doc would take me seriously if I asked to have DDs toe removed with no imminent need.  Where exactly does proxy consent start and end Ryan? Are there any body parts that you would remove from a child because the parents want it?

 

I'm waiting for the challenges to start against the FGM bill and equal protection.  It is just a few more short years before the first boys whos rights were violated under this law reach the age of consent and can start a constitutional challenge.  I'm not sure the FGM laws are in any danger of being overturned.  Less than 2 years ago, the trade organization that represents the financial interests of American pediatricians tried to sneak in an exemption to allow their constituents to mutilate girls genitals in a clinical setting and the uproar was ASTONISHING!  The request very quietly went away. 

post #82 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by candiceamey View Post

Hi Sue. Interesting stuff. Recall there are no proven medical benefits for female circumcision. Period. So comparing it with male circumcision is worse than bananas and cotton fields. As for the unhappy circumcised guys out there, there are plenty unhappy uncircumcised guys - just look at Ricky Lake show for example. I've seen it too with a buddy from school. And he was circumcised later in his 20s with complications far above what would have been expected as a child. As for being sued ... I can only picture the attorney driving around in his tacky van after the Connecticut massacre wanting to sue everyone in CT. There will always be those taking a quick buck. Maybe when someone gets HIV or penile cancer he'll sue someone that he WASN'T circumcised. As parents we can always look back and try and see did we do our best for our kids. There will always be things we could have done better. Weird that the AAP has never adopted as encouraging a support for infant circumcision as this time August 2012. And what so they have to benefit from it except the evidence. Good enough for me. That said I respect your opinion - all the best for you and your kids. I'm sure you will see them right. Same for me and my wife.

Do yourself a favor Ryan, don't pass yourself off as open minded about this. You aren't. At all. But I think that's pretty clear to anyone reading this thread. just saying

post #83 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fyrestorm View Post

I'm waiting for the challenges to start against the FGM bill and equal protection.  It is just a few more short years before the first boys whos rights were violated under this law reach the age of consent and can start a constitutional challenge.  I'm not sure the FGM laws are in any danger of being overturned.  Less than 2 years ago, the trade organization that represents the financial interests of American pediatricians tried to sneak in an exemption to allow their constituents to mutilate girls genitals in a clinical setting and the uproar was ASTONISHING!  The request very quietly went away. 

The issue I mentioned was that, if Congress is forced to decide between either banning or legalizing GM for both genders (rather than banning it on females but not males as is currently the case) because the courts say you can't discriminate between the sexes which way would they go? Trust me, I don't like GM for either gender, but based on that poll it seems like if faced with a fork in the road they'd rather go the route of re-legalizing FGM rather than banning MGM.

post #84 of 93

Male genital mutilation, called circumcision, was forced on me at birth, with no regard for my rights in the matter.

My parents were not given adequate information about the complications resulting from this mutilation, nor is any parent given the truth about circumcision.

 

My rights and my body were violated.       As a result, I've had difficulty all of my life in achieving orgasm in normal sex, because of the damage inflicted on me.

 

There are no standards to male genital mutilation;   the amount of tissue hacked off, the location/depth of the wounds are solely up to the whim of the mutilator at the moment.         And the corresponding damage to sexual feeling and function because of the neural and vascular damage can be devastating.        Google "David Reimer" to see just how destructive this is.

 

If it's illegal to circumcise female minors, it should be equally illegal to force circumcision on male minors, and for precisely the same reason; genital mutilation is genital mutilation, regardless of the sex of the victim.

 

The foreskin is not "extra skin," but a complex structure, with specialized tissues and about 20,000 nerve endings.      The foreskin also has Langerhans cells, which produce langerin, a substance with antiviral and antibacterial properties.

 

Doctors have been promoting MGM for decades in the USA----they make money from it, and are frequently members of the religions that try to impose circumcision on all males; they're highly biased.

 

Circumcision is a fraud and a hoax.

 

A foreskin is not a birth defect; it is a birthright.

 

CERIC

post #85 of 93

In the past many American physicians were of he belief that there were benefits to female circumcision. No study has ever been done on whether female circumcision would impact STDs or cancer, If there were those that have been desperately trying to find any excuse they can to continue cutting off parts of girls in a region where it has been falling out of favor than they would likely be able to come up with some benefits. Perhaps one would be reducing or eliminating the risk of vulvar cancer, even though vulvar caner is one of the rarest cancers for women, similar to penile cancer for men. Where are the studies on the benefits of amputating any other part of the human body?

 

Here is an incomplete list of some of the reasons given for circumcision overtime. Epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, elephantiasis, tuberculosis, eczema, bed-wetting, sexually transmitted infections, hip-joint disease, respiratory infections, fecal incontinence, rectal prolapse, sexually transmitted diseases, wet dreams, hernia, headaches, nervousness, hysteria, cancer, poor eyesight, idiocy, mental retardation, and insanity.

 

In addition to these, circumcision was also considered as a way to prevent black men from raping white women.

 

Please read this or visit the site here. http://www.nocirc.org/articles/fleiss1.php

 

Quote:
The "medical" debate about the "potential health benefits" of circumcision rarely addresses its real effects.

removed by moderator for copyright violation

 

So many underestimate the severe damage done by circumcision. Here is an individual that shares his experience of being circumcised as an adult. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAHGFx95D80

 

Why so many individuals have an obsession with cutting off part of their sons penis is difficult for me to understand. Would they be just as willing to cut off any other part of their childrens body if they were given that option? Even when parents could have had their daughters circumcised, the percentage of those that did only represented a very small portion of the population.

 

The obsession with circumcising males is something that I am still trying to fully grasp. Perhaps, when the cultures that circumcise their daughters are considered, it is about parents viewing their children as their own personal property instead of as individual human beings. Desiring to mark them as such and to do it in a way that will effect them more personally than any other, a mark that will remind both the person and his or her partner who he or she belongs to. It will be during their most personal and private moments together that they will be reminded of this and effected by it the most. A mark intended to show a parents influence and control over every relationship that their children will engage in, to remind all lovers of the power they once had over them and of the family lineage. Every partner will quickly be made acutely aware of this, an unspoken understanding of who shaped both individuals sexual lives.

 

Men are at a seven times or more greater risk of having this done to them than women. I have hypothesized on why this is the case but I am still seeking a definitive answer, although it is likely a combination of things.

post #86 of 93

Hello Everyone,

 I temporarily removed this thread for review, but it is back now.  I want to remind all users of our forum guidelines (see below for an excerpt).  This forum is called The Case Against Circumcision.  I appreciate that you are keeping the discussion going in a civil manner that inspires and educates.  Thank you for sharing your voice in our community.
Pokey

 

 

Mothering questions routine medical circumcision and advocates for informed consent. TCAC hosts discussion of the reasons to avoid circumcision, the history of the procedure, medical issues and studies, complications, the needs and rights of the child, care of the intact child's penis and other educational topics. We are not interested in hosting discussion on merits of routine infant medical circumcision. [Emphasis added by Moderator] Advocacy threads requesting members take action should be submitted to the Activism forum for approval.

It is our wish that The Case Against Circumcision be an informative and welcoming space for those who are new to the subject of circumcision. This is not a space to bash others. In an effort to minimize language which might alienate those seeking information, we are cautious about using pejorative terms such as abuse, barbarism, mutilation, etc. when routinely discussing circumcision. Let the facts speak for themselves.

post #87 of 93

Circumcision, male OR female, is a violation of human rights, and damages sexual feeling and function.

 

Male genital mutilation, called circumcision, doesn't prevent any disease or infection.       The HIV and STD rates in the USA, where the vast majority of males in the past had circumcision forced on them as infants, is much higher than in Europe, Scandinavia, South America and most of Asia, where circumcision is rarely perpetrated on males.

 

There are no standards to circumcision; the amount of tissue hacked off of the penis, the location/depth of the wounds are solely up to the whim of the mutilator at the moment.

Doctors aren't the only ones who force genital mutilation on infants; inexperienced medical students and nurses also perpetrate circumcision.       It's open season on male infants, while female minors are protected against genital mutilation.      This is sexist in the extreme, and unconstitutional as such in the USA.

 

The foreskin is not "extra skin," but a complex structure with specialized tissues and about 20,000 nerve endings.        The foreskin also has Langerhans cells, which produce langerin, a substance with proven antiviral and antibiotic properties.            The foreskin is also essential for complete, natural and normal sexual feeling and function.

 

It's absurd to think that damaging a penis would improve it in any way.          Circumcision was popularized in the USA because doctgors made money from it, and many of the doctors belong to the religions that try to impose circumcision on all males; they're highly biased.

 

I had circumcision forced on me as an infant, and the resulting damage made it almost impossible for me to achieve orgasn in normal sex.         The damage of circumcision varies wildly, as I stated above----it is neural and vascular damage to the penis, and the keratinization of the glans and surrounding tissues, which are supposed to be covered by tghe foreskin, damages sexual feeling throughout the victim's lifetime.

 

Circumcision is a fraud and a hoax.

 

A foreskin is not a birth defect; it is a birthright.

 

ERIC

post #88 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by candiceamey View Post

Have to say - as a guy circumcised as a baby in the late seventies like everyone I knew - I personally have no issues with the AAP statement and the CDCs new suggestions. If the evidence is there in support of the benefits of circumcision (evidence based) why should people continue disputing this just because its not PC in some circles. I had my son circumcised 5y ago and would I do it again to save him from the risks of HIV, penile cancer and less chance of increasing his GFs risk of cervical cancer. And he had local anesthetic and slept the whole time and fed well afterwards. I was there so I can vouch for it. Call me "backward" that's ok. But personally I think these benefits talk for themselves. As for less doing it - think this is rubbish. All my buddies and friends had their sons done too. So not in the minority.


I have reported your post. We do not advocate the cutting of helpless children here on MDC.
post #89 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by mama24-7 View Post

 

...

 

While I'm not a lawyer, since you are almost a physician, I'd suggest you never circumcise a child.  Did you know that a child can sue his circumciser when he comes of age?  You might look at GregB's posts here.  I believe he's a lawyer who has represented those who have been circ'd as well as a parents of children who's circ's have been botched (Greg, please correct me if I'm wrong). ...

 

Sorry to disappoint, I am not a lawyer.  Instead I am a scientist and the son of an engineer.  And recently I have spent considerable time learning and applying decision analyis tools to my work and personal life.

 

More importantly, I have spent a lot of time over the last 12 years reading and thinking about this issue.  Hopefully I have been able to articulate and frame the discussions well, so that they are easier to understand for everyone.  The thing is, once you clearly articulate the arguments, the ones for RIC fall apart for some reason...

 

Regards


Edited by Greg B - 3/3/13 at 6:39am
post #90 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by candiceamey View Post

I hear your opinion. However you cannot compare male with female circumcision. There are no benefits at all for the latter. The are per the CDC benefits for male circumcision however. And that's evidence based. Whether the rest of the world chooses to follow this is up to then. I suspect if you don't do it already you won't be keen to start. That's why we still do it on the States. Not because we have bad health care or because we are dumb. Even if John Kerry suggests otherwise wink1.gif

 

You should be aware that the very same arguments are used to justify female circumcision.  You can go down the points one by one and find they are the same.  And have the same level of support. 

 

The benefits per the CDC are not widely accepted.  However, even if you accept that they benefits are there, that is not all you have to do to make a good decision.  Instead, you need to weigh those benefits against the negative consequences.  It is not enough to say there is some benefit and that is enough.  A simple example.  There are a number of benefits to castrating a boy before the age of puberty.  He will never get testicular cancer, be less aggressive, will retain his hair, will live longer, and will have a wondeful voice for singing.  In fact, this was done back in the day.  Google "castrati" if you are curious.

 

But you hear that and cannot understand why anyone would even contemplate that, I would imagine.  And with good reason.  Because you can clearly see that these benefits are clearly not enough to outweight the negative consequences of losing his ability to father children, having his human rights violated, and not having his nromal sex drive, perhaps being impotent due to low levels of testosterone.  Easy to see why those benefits are not enough to justify castrating.

 

You need to do the same when thinking about circumcision.  Do the benefits you feel are proven justify the negative consequences?  The negative consequences include:  1) pain and suffering during the procedure, 2) risk of death and complications, loss of the most important part of a man's anatomny for sexual feeling and function, for both him and his partner, 3) violation of his human rights, among others.

 

I would say clearly they are not.  Not to mention that it is easy to wait, and medically a better, more predictable job can be done later in life.

 

Regards

post #91 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg B View Post
Sorry to disappoint, I am not a lawyer.  Instead I am a scientist and the sone of an engineer.  And recently I have spent considerable time learning and applying decision analyis tools to me work and personal life.

 

More importantly, I have spent a lot of time over the last 12 years reading and thinking about this issue.  Hopefully I have been able to articulate and frame the discussions well, so that they are easier to understand for everyone.  The thing is, once you clearly articulate the arguments, the ones for RIC fall apart for some reason...

 

Regards

sulkoff.gif Whoops!  Thanks for correcting me. innocent.gif

 

Sus

post #92 of 93

I'm guessing there was a lot in this thread that was edited out my a mod.  Anyway, I saw this today & it reminded me of the recent happenings in this thread.  It's the Attorney's for the Rights of the Child's paper on the recent AAP changes.  "Out of step: fatal flaws in the latest AAP policy report on neonatal circumcision."

 

http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2013/03/16/10539181/JME%20AAP%20Article%20Final%20Approved%20Proof%203-12-13.pdf

 

Sus

post #93 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by candiceamey View Post

I hear your opinion. However you cannot compare male with female circumcision. There are no benefits at all for the latter. The are per the CDC benefits for male circumcision however. And that's evidence based. Whether the rest of the world chooses to follow this is up to then. I suspect if you don't do it already you won't be keen to start. That's why we still do it on the States. Not because we have bad health care or because we are dumb. Even if John Kerry suggests otherwise wink1.gif

Greetings!

I was wondering if it is of your opinion that evidence-based research can never be flawed or biased? If foreskin removal prevented STD's, then surely a quick check of the data in other non-circumcising nations will reveal a clear higher STD rate compared with the US?

I encourage you to research this issue with an open mind. Read about the history of the procedure, and deaths and botched surgeries requiring multiple surgeries and resulting in lasting damage. Your son may have been OK, but many are not, and if you are truly a man after the truth, step outside your comfort zone and see this issue for what it is.

Even if circumcision on a grown man in Africa did slightly reduce the risk of HIV, please tell me how this applies to newborn baby boys in the US? Can you say apples to oranges? Doesn't seem very scientific to me.

Also, even if there were slight benefits, have they been properly weighed against the negatives? The foreskin is a highly sensitive part of a man's body...it has more nerve endings than the female clitorus! Removing this tissue removes the functions and benefits of the organ. Why does a very limited study on grown African men, who were instructed to abstain from sex or use condoms (did you actually read the study or do you prefer to take the AAP's word on it?) mean our nonconsenting baby boys must lose their rights to bodily integrity? Does that sound like evidence-based medicine to you? To me, it sounds like a profit-based decision which preys on US parents' trust in health authorities and deeply ingrained cultural taboos.

My husband used to think as you do...that it's no big deal, he was happy with his penis, and that there MUST be valid medical reasons for it if it was done to him and so many others. It can be difficult to consider the possibility that the public has been misled on this issue. After learning what the foreskin is, and how important it is to the function of the penis, my husband is officially pissed off. Part of his body was cut off and thrown into the trash (or sold) against his will while he was strapped down. This gross abuse of our boys has got to stop. It is unethical and an obvious (well, to the rest of the developed world anyway) human rights violation.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Understanding Circumcision
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › OMG - AAP says circumcision benefits outweigh the risks?!?!!!