Hm, I got stuck on an argument point - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 33 Old 10-06-2010, 10:52 AM - Thread Starter
 
2boyzmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dayton, Oh WPAFB
Posts: 5,976
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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)

Mommy to BigBoy Ian (3-17-05) ; LittleBoy Connor (3-3-07) (DiGeorge/VCFS):; BabyBoy Gavin (10-3-09) x3 AngelBaby (1-7-06)
2boyzmama is offline  
#2 of 33 Old 10-06-2010, 11:27 AM
 
Pumpkinheadmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Pumpkinheadmommy is offline  
#3 of 33 Old 10-06-2010, 11:34 AM
 
Pirogi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 964
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2boyzmama View Post
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.
Pirogi is offline  
#4 of 33 Old 10-06-2010, 11:53 AM
 
MommytoB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,204
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
MommytoB is offline  
#5 of 33 Old 10-06-2010, 12:13 PM
 
outlier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: far from average
Posts: 529
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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."

9/2011 items decluttered
outlier is offline  
#6 of 33 Old 10-06-2010, 12:14 PM
 
kiara7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,044
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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?
kiara7 is offline  
#7 of 33 Old 10-06-2010, 01:08 PM
 
MoonJelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Following Tony Bourdain in my other life
Posts: 1,713
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

Partner to DH geek.gif and Former WOHM, now SAHM dizzy.gif to Sensory & ADHD DD (9), with DD (4) and DS (2)nocirc.gif winner.jpghomebirth.jpg

MoonJelly is offline  
#8 of 33 Old 10-06-2010, 01:11 PM
 
nd_deadhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
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.

If the chips are down, the buffalo is empty.

nd_deadhead is online now  
#9 of 33 Old 10-06-2010, 01:19 PM
 
MoonJelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Following Tony Bourdain in my other life
Posts: 1,713
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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."

Partner to DH geek.gif and Former WOHM, now SAHM dizzy.gif to Sensory & ADHD DD (9), with DD (4) and DS (2)nocirc.gif winner.jpghomebirth.jpg

MoonJelly is offline  
#10 of 33 Old 10-06-2010, 07:11 PM
 
eepster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: growing in the Garden State ............
Posts: 9,510
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

Timmy's Mommy WARNINGyslexic typing with help of preschooler, beware of typos
eepster is offline  
#11 of 33 Old 10-06-2010, 07:39 PM
 
SpiderMum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 520
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
SpiderMum is offline  
#12 of 33 Old 10-07-2010, 02:02 AM
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 753
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2boyzmama View Post
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 !!
hakunangovi is online now  
#13 of 33 Old 10-07-2010, 09:49 AM
 
sleet76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: WI
Posts: 995
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

Stacy-- Wife to my DH, mom to three: noodle girl:, Lego boy , little guy :
sleet76 is offline  
#14 of 33 Old 10-07-2010, 10:40 AM
 
jess_paez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderMum View Post
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.

Jessicaintactlact.gif, wife to Derricklurk.gif, missing Joslyn angel3.gif, 22 weeks 06.18.08, rainbow1284.gifBaby Kai Ambrose 05.10.10 and Isla Blythe born on Thanksgiving '12 uc.jpg

jess_paez is offline  
#15 of 33 Old 10-07-2010, 05:19 PM
 
Crunchy Frog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

Single mom to the Crunchy Froglets, Keith and Carlin, twin boys born 1/30/09. Frozen for 10 years, now unleashed on the world.
Crunchy Frog is offline  
#16 of 33 Old 10-07-2010, 06:25 PM
 
BugMacGee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
What about the immediate risk of a surgical wound in a diaper full of poo? Do people not register this?
BugMacGee is offline  
#17 of 33 Old 10-08-2010, 02:40 AM
 
PlainandTall's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 98
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
#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.
PlainandTall is offline  
#18 of 33 Old 10-08-2010, 10:39 AM
 
emnic77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: MA
Posts: 1,214
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

Quote:
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.

Em, married to Alex, mom to Samantha (11 yrs) and Cullen (5yrs) and Maybe (5/16/2010) Trying to grow 4,000lbs of produce on .2 acres. See my blog!
emnic77 is offline  
#19 of 33 Old 10-10-2010, 03:16 AM - Thread Starter
 
2boyzmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dayton, Oh WPAFB
Posts: 5,976
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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!

Mommy to BigBoy Ian (3-17-05) ; LittleBoy Connor (3-3-07) (DiGeorge/VCFS):; BabyBoy Gavin (10-3-09) x3 AngelBaby (1-7-06)
2boyzmama is offline  
#20 of 33 Old 10-10-2010, 04:10 PM
 
SpiderMum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 520
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlainandTall View Post
#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.
SpiderMum is offline  
#21 of 33 Old 10-10-2010, 06:05 PM
 
mom2tatum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: outside of Philly
Posts: 1,278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pirogi View Post
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.

Already!?!?! cold.gif  ~ Lori, doula, childbirth educator, wife to Jermaine 6/04, and mom to two happy and energetic boys - Tatum 6/06 and Keegan 3/09

mom2tatum is offline  
#22 of 33 Old 10-10-2010, 06:41 PM
A&A
 
A&A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,858
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Using that friend's logic, she'd cut off her dd's breast tissue so they don't get breast cancer.

"Our task is not to see the future, but to enable it."
A&A is offline  
#23 of 33 Old 10-10-2010, 07:35 PM
 
K703's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderMum View Post
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.
K703 is online now  
#24 of 33 Old 10-12-2010, 11:28 PM
 
jenP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 997
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crunchy Frog View Post
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 is offline  
#25 of 33 Old 10-12-2010, 11:29 PM
 
jenP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 997
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by A&A View Post
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.
jenP is offline  
#26 of 33 Old 10-15-2010, 05:23 AM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,606
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
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.

If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is offline  
#27 of 33 Old 10-15-2010, 07:03 AM
 
swd12422's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
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??
swd12422 is online now  
#28 of 33 Old 10-15-2010, 02:28 PM
 
jenP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 997
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by swd12422 View Post
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.
!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by swd12422 View Post
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
jenP is offline  
#29 of 33 Old 10-15-2010, 02:32 PM
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 32,629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2boyzmama View Post
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?
Arduinna is offline  
#30 of 33 Old 10-15-2010, 04:20 PM
 
Storm Bride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 27,300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2boyzmama View Post
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)

Lisa, lucky mama of Kelly (3/93) ribboncesarean.gif, Emma (5/03) ribboncesarean.gif, Evan (7/05) ribboncesarean.gif, & Jenna (6/09) ribboncesarean.gif
Loving my amazing dh, James & forever missing ribbonpb.gif Aaron Ambrose ribboncesarean.gif (11/07) ribbonpb.gif

Storm Bride is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off