OMG - AAP says circumcision benefits outweigh the risks?!?!!! - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 93 Old 12-08-2012, 09:14 AM
 
pek64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
How does being circumcised help a guy put on a condom? Using condoms is the only way to reduce sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV.

And what evidence do you have that older, uncircumcised men get recurring uti's?
pek64 is offline  
#62 of 93 Old 12-08-2012, 09:18 AM
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 756
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by studentDr View Post

circumcision may decrease the rate of stds, but you would expect that , well you would hope that guys didn't put themselves in such situations, eg use of condoms. I think it is more of a thing advocated in developing countries to reduce the rate of stds especially HIV.
 

 

Why would you expect that?  In the developed world, the U.S.A. has the highest incidence of STDs and also, by far, the highest rate of circumcision.  Also there are studies done in Africa that claim a higher rate of HIV in the circumcised population: http://circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html  .

 

Originally Posted by studentDr View Post

certainly as a guy becomes an old man if he is uncircumcised he is much more likely to get recurrent urinary tract infections.
.

 

 

What makes you say that?  I do not believe that is the case in Europe where almost all the old men are intact.  Consider that in Finland only one in more than 16,000 will die without his foreskin, and there is no epidepic of UTIs there, for example.

hakunangovi is offline  
#63 of 93 Old 12-08-2012, 09:54 AM
 
studentDr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
thats interesting, thank you for informing me

all that I was taught is from what we were told in our geriatric rotations

I do think it is a bit mean cutting it for trivial reasons

we study a whole 6 months on obstetrics, gynaecology and paediatrics, but we never study men's health, it's obviously just as important
studentDr is offline  
#64 of 93 Old 12-12-2012, 08:28 PM
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 756
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

StudentDr,  I commend you for  comming here with an open mind.  You hit the nail on the head.  There is a serious lack of knowlege about normal intact male genitalia on the part of those in teaching positions in North America.  Most of what we are told are myths and fabrications. If you research  the history of circumcision, you will discover that it was introduced to curb masturbation. The medical community has been searching for justifications ever since. A new one each time the previous one was disproven.

 

http://icgi.org/medicalization-of-circumcision.htm

 

Consider that 85% of the word's males are intact. Of those, the vast majority are Muslims. Most of the rest are Jews and Americans.

 

You seem willing to learn.  I hope you are, and I hope that you will not be shy about sharing your knowlege.

 

You may be interested in perusing: 

 

www.cirp.org

www.circumstitions.org

www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org

 

There are lots more in the sticky at the top of this board.

 

Good luck.

hakunangovi is offline  
#65 of 93 Old 12-12-2012, 11:09 PM
 
studentDr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
thanks smile.gif
studentDr is offline  
#66 of 93 Old 12-12-2012, 11:48 PM
 
studentDr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
can I ask a stupid question seeing as I am not a guy or a mother

I hope I don't get into trouble for this being off the topic

um I've heard that baby boys discover their genitals and like to play with them, (and females can apparetnly put things in theirs like peas and grass ) do they actually really masturbate at such a young age ?

or is it just around 14 that it starts ?
studentDr is offline  
#67 of 93 Old 12-15-2012, 07:59 PM
 
mama24-7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: with the dust bunnies
Posts: 2,447
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by studentDr View Post

can I ask a stupid question seeing as I am not a guy or a mother
I hope I don't get into trouble for this being off the topic
um I've heard that baby boys discover their genitals and like to play with them, (and females can apparetnly put things in theirs like peas and grass ) do they actually really masturbate at such a young age ?
or is it just around 14 that it starts ?

I don't think it's a stupid question ;-)!  Actually, circumcision first took hold in the US precisely to inflict pain upon children who had been exploring their bodies, so circ'ing was used as a punishment and/or prevention from exploring the body.  I remember reading a quote from an old book that talked about it saying something like, inflict pain in that area so the child remembers & will no longer masturbate.  Read about Dr. Kellog (can't remember his first name)...he was one of the first big drs. pushing it.  And, initially, circ was done to girls also, for the same reasons, I believe, that it was done to boys.  It wasn't made against the law to perform circ on girls until 1997, I believe.  (Most of my info here is going based on memory.  I may have the year wrong and/or Dr. Kellog's name spelled wrong.)

 

I have three children.  They've all explored their bodies.  From age 9ish months - 10 years old.  I think it is normal to do this, just not looked up as healthy in our prudish, puritan society.

 

Sus


Baby the babies while they're babies so they don't need babying for a lifetime.
mama24-7 is online now  
#68 of 93 Old 02-26-2013, 12:18 PM
 
candiceamey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
candiceamey is offline  
#69 of 93 Old 02-26-2013, 12:22 PM
 
candiceamey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Have to say its amazing that all the quotes of evidence about circumcision are all one sided.
www.cdc.gov/hiv/malecircumcision/ mentions the evidence base from the other side. Oh and I'm also a doctor in residency. Ryan
candiceamey is offline  
#70 of 93 Old 02-26-2013, 12:25 PM
 
candiceamey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
@Hakunangovi: think you'd better read up on HIV and the DECREASED risk in circumcised males. Not the other way around. Like I was saying spreading false facts damages any balanced argument. I'm prepared as a guy to see the other side of opinion of circumcision but it seems others aren't here. Even if I disagree. Ryan.
candiceamey is offline  
#71 of 93 Old 02-26-2013, 03:27 PM
 
mama24-7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: with the dust bunnies
Posts: 2,447
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
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.

 

Hello Ryan!  (I have a son named Ryan ;-).)  Welcome.gif  I hope you'll stick around & continue to participate in the conversation.

 

There are plenty of guys in your shoes, happy as larks w/ their goods.  But, there are plenty of guys who are in your shoes angry as hell.  Does another person have the right to amputate a healthy body part regardless of the potential benefits?  What about amputating the healthy body parts of girls?  Is that okay?  If not, why is it okay to do to boys but not girls?

 

If you are on twitter, you may want to check out this to follow: https://twitter.com/mendocomplain  Oh, and on Facebook, here are pictures of the brave men who stood up at the press conference in front of where the AAP was holding their conference to say that they did not consent to their circ's: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151286880176388&set=pb.41930706387.-2207520000.1361921157&type=3&theater

 

There's a thread here from those who are unhappy they were circ'd.  Here it is: http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1368471/if-you-regret-being-circumcised-post-here  My husband is circ'd & we are both unhappy about it.  It effects us every single time we're intimate.  Every. Single. Time.

 

And, you have no problem w/ the AAP's statement?  We're the laughing stock of the rest of the first world!  Here's a sampling of other countries pediatric group's statements: http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by candiceamey View Post

Have to say its amazing that all the quotes of evidence about circumcision are all one sided.
www.cdc.gov/hiv/malecircumcision/ mentions the evidence base from the other side. Oh and I'm also a doctor in residency. Ryan

 

Since you are a doctor, you may want to become familiar w/ this organization www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org as well as this one www.nursesfortherightsofthechild.org in addition to this one, run by a nurse www.nocirc.org.  There is also www.intactamerica.org who is working to end the practice of forced genital cutting on unconsenting individuals.  

 

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). 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by candiceamey View Post

@Hakunangovi: think you'd better read up on HIV and the DECREASED risk in circumcised males. Not the other way around. Like I was saying spreading false facts damages any balanced argument. I'm prepared as a guy to see the other side of opinion of circumcision but it seems others aren't here. Even if I disagree. Ryan.

 

I'd encourage you to look through the threads here at MDC.  There are many rebuttals to the supposed trials of circ in Africa.  Did you know that the trials were cut short?  Did you know that they advised the circ'd group to abstain from sex for a large portion of the study?  There is more that I'm not sure of my memory on so I'll stop there.  Do you think that your child won't be able to learn how to protect himself from STDs while keeping their whole body?  Do you think that a circ means their immune?  What will happen if there is a cure to those diseases by then?  Where will your son be then?  Oh, maybe you'll help him learn about foreskin restoration.

 

And, even if they were valid studies, what does cutting off parts of Africans have to do w/ healthy babies born in America?  

 

You said, "I'm prepared as a guy to see the other side of opinion of circumcision but it seems others aren't here."  Are you prepared to see the "other side" of the female genital mutilation argument?  Do you know what the proponents of that practice claim are it's benefits?  Hmmm, hygiene, more attractive potential mates, healthier, blah, blah, blah.  Yup, the same stuff that's spewed as "information," and "research," and "reasons" to cut off healthy parts of non-consenting individuals.

 

Oh, and just to round out the info for your purusal, here are many moms who regret circ'ing their sons.  Many of them were misinformed by doctors & other medpros.  Many of them were coerced by family members.  Many were lead to believe it was just a flap of skin.  Many of them believed it was their partner's decision since they weren't the ones w/ a penis.  Read it, I dare you (it's 36 pages long):  http://www.mothering.com/community/t/112410/if-you-regret-circumcising-your-son-s-please-post-here

 

I could go on, but I must attend to my happy, healthy, WHOLE sons now.

 

Best wishes,

Sus

Marnica and thegoodearth like this.

Baby the babies while they're babies so they don't need babying for a lifetime.
mama24-7 is online now  
#72 of 93 Old 02-26-2013, 11:45 PM
 
candiceamey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
candiceamey is offline  
#73 of 93 Old 02-26-2013, 11:48 PM
 
candiceamey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Oh and the trials in Africa were stopped because the evidence in support of circumcision decreasing HIV was so compelling that continuing would have been criminal to those not being circumcised. That was evidence based again. R
candiceamey is offline  
#74 of 93 Old 02-27-2013, 12:49 AM
 
Mitchell756's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

It is interesting that the only medical personnel in the industrialized world that believe that circumcision should be forced on children are also from the only industrialized nation that has a profit based medical system instead of a care based medical system. The United states has the worst health system and the highest rates of HIV, STDs and cervical cancer of all of the industrialized nations.

 

The German pediatric association recently came out in support of a total ban of male circumcision, in the same manner that the Royal Dutch Medical Association has. Circumcision is already illegal in Finland, represented by the successful prosecution of a couple that had their sons circumcised in 2011.

 

The Indonesian medical community believes in female circumcision and has specific guidelines for physicians detailing how it should be performed. Female circumcision was also previously supported by many physicians in the American medical community and was covered by the insurance company Blue Cross until 1977. No one has yet to investigate whether female circumcision has health benefits in regards to STDs or cervical cancer, so to say that they do not supposedly exist if they, according to you, do for male circumcision is truly quite daft.

 

There are many threads on all of these subjects here if you take the time to look around, because many of them are fairly recent. You are a circumcised man that is happy that he is circumcised and has circumcised his son. There are many woman that are happy that they are circumcised and have done the same thing to their daughters and would do it again.

 

If you were to travel to Europe, Latin America, non Muslim Asia or New Zealand and attempt to introduce male circumcision as a form of preventative medicine similar to vaccines you would be viewed as endorsing a form of pseudo science and be completely disregarded by the medical establishments in those nations (which the vast majority of have much better overall health than the U.S in every way, at a much lower cost).

 

This is not aimed directly at you as I suspect there is very little chance of changing your position on this regardless. This is aimed at anyone that may be reading this that is on the fence about whether or not they should have any future sons circumcised.

 

Here is one thing that I believe everyone that may be reading this should watch : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggqa6CCTR-4

Mitchell756 is offline  
#75 of 93 Old 02-27-2013, 04:14 AM
 
candiceamey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
candiceamey is offline  
#76 of 93 Old 02-27-2013, 06:11 AM
 
Fyrestorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 4,102
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Can you explain how you get around the 14th amendment that is supposed to provide equal protection under the law and how you do the work around for medical ethics?  I'm confused as to why boys don't deserve the same rights that are guaranteed through this constitutional amendment and how proxy consent and first do no harm come into play here.

applejuice likes this.

Victim of Birth Rape & Coerced ribboncesarean.gifUnnecesareanribboncesarean.gif What makes people think they can cut up someone else's genitals? nocirc.gif
Fyrestorm is offline  
#77 of 93 Old 02-27-2013, 07:43 AM
 
philomom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 9,430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
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 posts. The "glory" of cutting non-consenting boys is not our goal at MDC. Cutting boys harms the boy they are and the men they will become. My Swedish cousins are appalled that Americans maim boys to possibly reduce HiV. That's a grownups and condom issue...... not something to be solved by barbarically cutting a baby boy's penis.
Marnica likes this.
philomom is offline  
#78 of 93 Old 02-27-2013, 07:50 AM
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

@candiceamey... do your colleagues feel the same as you? I hope not. I hope the trend is away from your mentality. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, values, beliefs, etc, but since you have chosen a profession in medicine, you have a responsibility to practice good medicine. Routine circumcision is not that. My intact son was born a few years ago at a very large teaching hospital in NC. He was born via c-section and unfortunately spent his first 9 days of life in the NICU. As you can imagine, I saw and spoke with MANY doctors, nurses, and other practitioners during this time, and everytime I was asked if I was going to circ my son and said no, I was practically high-fived by all of them. I don't know what specialty you are interested in, but I hope not OB/Gyn or any pediatric specialty.


Newly married 10/2013 to DH superhero.gifSAHM to DD 2007  dust.gif and DS 2010  bouncy.gif  homeschool.gifselectivevax.gifdelayedvax.gifnocirc.gifhamster.jpg
erinmattsmom88 is offline  
#79 of 93 Old 02-27-2013, 07:54 AM
 
EchoSoul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 404
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Ryan...the CDC is NOT an appropriate source for information of any kind. They lie about it all. As far as the HIV study in Africa..it's important to note that it is not common for them to use condoms. It's got nothing to do with whether they're intact or not, it's entirely due to the fact that they just don't often use condoms over there...if at all. The only reason the study was stopped, as all one-sided studies are stopped, is to achieve the answer they wanted. Organizations that know better only run highly tweaked studies for a short enough period of time, to achieve the answer they want..then they just stop. Nor do they invest time and money and research into all possible theories. Such as the lack of condoms being the cause of the high rate of HIV over there. That's all there is to it. Pass out a bunch of condoms to the people, teach them how to use them, and why to use them, and I bet we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now.

EchoSoul is offline  
#80 of 93 Old 02-27-2013, 09:36 AM
 
K703's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 93
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fyrestorm View Post

Can you explain how you get around the 14th amendment that is supposed to provide equal protection under the law and how you do the work around for medical ethics?  I'm confused as to why boys don't deserve the same rights that are guaranteed through this constitutional amendment and how proxy consent and first do no harm come into play here.

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.)

K703 is online now  
#81 of 93 Old 02-27-2013, 09:58 AM
 
Fyrestorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 4,102
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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. 

applejuice likes this.

Victim of Birth Rape & Coerced ribboncesarean.gifUnnecesareanribboncesarean.gif What makes people think they can cut up someone else's genitals? nocirc.gif
Fyrestorm is offline  
#82 of 93 Old 02-27-2013, 10:32 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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

crayfishgirl likes this.

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#83 of 93 Old 02-27-2013, 10:42 AM
 
K703's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 93
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

K703 is online now  
#84 of 93 Old 02-27-2013, 11:09 AM
 
ceric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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

ceric is offline  
#85 of 93 Old 02-27-2013, 11:27 AM
 
Mitchell756's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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.

Mitchell756 is offline  
#86 of 93 Old 02-28-2013, 11:30 AM
 
pokeyac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bay Area, Ca
Posts: 3,414
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)

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.




Married to a wonderful woman since 2010. Baby boy C arrived in June 2013!

Check out our User Agreement.
pokeyac is online now  
#87 of 93 Old 03-01-2013, 11:45 AM
 
ceric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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

ceric is offline  
#88 of 93 Old 03-01-2013, 06:32 PM
 
philomom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 9,430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
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.
philomom is offline  
#89 of 93 Old 03-02-2013, 08:23 AM
 
Greg B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Dover, DE, US
Posts: 776
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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

Greg B is offline  
#90 of 93 Old 03-02-2013, 08:51 AM
 
Greg B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Dover, DE, US
Posts: 776
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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

Greg B is offline  
Reply

Tags
Circumcision

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