All RIGHT (just convinced like 20 people not to circ!) - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 31 Old 05-02-2003, 05:26 AM - Thread Starter
 
nikirj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington
Posts: 4,952
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Background: I am in an introductory composition class at the University of Hawaii because the course is required for all students regardless of academic past (I am a senior, go figure).

So in this class our teacher states that we will be doing one research-based persuasion paper. We have already done papers in several different styles. The process is very open, since we share ideas throughout the class to get ideas about potential counterarguements, support for ideas, etc. Volatile subjects are allowed and slightly encouraged.

When I announced my intent to do this paper on circumcision, I got pretty much everyone's attention. I was astounded to hear "why not?" as the most frequent question. But it turns out that most of the students in the class were extremely open-minded and I know for certain that the three men in my focus group are now firmly on "our" side.

I am wondering, though; what should my "power point" be? What is the ONE THING that seals the case for you? I need to put that right up front-and-center. This is an 8-pager opinion paper, written in narrative style, and I want to pick out one main point to really hammer in.

I have never had a chance to get to so many people at one time. They will all hear at least part of this.

Mama, homeschooler, midwife. DD (13yo), DS (11yo), DD (8yo), DD (3yo), somebody new coming in November 2013.

nikirj is offline  
#2 of 31 Old 05-02-2003, 09:03 AM
 
SagMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,979
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by nikirj

I am wondering, though; what should my "power point" be? What is the ONE THING that seals the case for you?
That I have no right to authorize the removal of a healthy part of another person's body. My sons' bodies are their own -- they were born healthy and whole and I've no right to interfere with that.

Single Mom to 3 (12, 17 & 21)  luxlove.gif and dog2.gif.

SagMom is offline  
#3 of 31 Old 05-02-2003, 10:30 AM
 
Frankly Speaking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Atlanta
Posts: 5,167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
A few choices:

(1) Medical necessity
(2) Risk of complications
(3) Sexual Damage
(3) Religious
(4) Human rights
(5) Legal problems

(1) There is little argument about the medical necessity as evidenced by statements by medical orgainzations. (2) The risk is known but there is little agreement about the frequency. (3) While the damage has been documented for 2,000 years, there is no definitive research. (3) A touchy subject but definitely not for Christians. However, it is odd how some people can read the Bible and come up with two totally different conclusions. (4) Probably the easiest to assert and document. (5) This aspect is so new that there is still not much proof.

My suggestion would be to use Human Rights as your main argument and all of the others as supporting arguments.

We will be glad to assist with information and links. Just ask!




Frank
Frankly Speaking is offline  
#4 of 31 Old 05-02-2003, 11:09 AM
 
Jellybean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Between Heaven and Hell.
Posts: 32
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Definitely the human rights aspect.
Jellybean is offline  
#5 of 31 Old 05-02-2003, 11:10 AM
 
Sarah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think the human right to genital integrity is the fundamental point that can not be argued down at all.

I think the argument needs to be lifted out of the context of parental decision making (presenting rather fluffy pros and cons of circumcision or non-circumcision ...all the while reinforcing the idea that OTHER PEOPLE have a right to make decisions about someone's healthy unique sexual anatomy)

Most people have a presumption that this is a decision parents have, so let's make our case to them.

The fact is, this is ONLY a decision parents have because two very gigantic systems (legal and medical) have been negligent in their duty and have shuttled the responsibility to figure this out back to lay people.

The 14th ammendment makes male circumcision legally wrong as long as anti FGM laws are standing, the basic tennets of medical practice make circumcision medically wrong- if the laws were applied properly- circumcisers would be prosecuted for sexual assault- they are not using their scalpels for a medical purpose- and when a Dr. uses a scalpel that is not healing- it is harming, and that is a crime.

Regardless of what parents may want- it is the duty of the law and the physicians, to tell them that this practice is not acceptable. This case can be presented in a rather airtight manner because the only arguments against it require (what is actually happening) us to turn a blind eye to logic, common sense and ethics for this special circumstance because we simply need to do this, and our culture's compulsion defies reason and demands to be protected.
Sarah is offline  
#6 of 31 Old 05-02-2003, 11:10 AM
 
JewelsRae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 346
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
That I did everything in my power to protect him during my pregnancy and worried about his health and safety, was so careful to do everything right- eat healthy, exercise, natural birth etc- How could I willingly give him up to go through the tremendously painful and terrifying experience of having his penis cut apart?

Also, how DARE anyone believe they have the right put another human being through horrific pain - let alone their SON who trusts and loves them- JUST TO MAKE THEM LOOK BETTER???!!

People also get really heated about their disgust of female circ- I would focus breifly on the similarities of the two- male vs female circ. They are both done for religious reasons, they are both done to make the child look "nicer", to make them more socially acceptable, they are both incredibly painful, etc.

Too bad you couldn't show a video of infant circ- I'm sure that win over lots more people!!

Good Luck!!
JewelsRae is offline  
#7 of 31 Old 05-02-2003, 04:30 PM
 
Kylix's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: drifting off in space
Posts: 1,513
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I vote for the human rights aspect as well.

Kylix
Kylix is offline  
#8 of 31 Old 05-04-2003, 05:18 PM
 
elelvee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: U.S. Midwest
Posts: 460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Focus on the human rights aspect.
I second Sarah's post.

If you were doing a longer presentation, I'd get people to think about why they WANT to circumcise someone. One point that might do it is, Why can't it wait? Why is the doctor handing us this paper?
And before that, show listeners how frequent it is. I had no strong feelings one way or the other because I thought it was rarely done. Our church (in my youth I was Catholic) did not say anything and I got the impression that people are good and bodies are neutral. I thought that only Jews felt strongly about circumcision.
elelvee is offline  
#9 of 31 Old 05-04-2003, 06:55 PM
 
laidbackmomto2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 98
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
While I agree with the others here regarding the human rights aspect...I think it needs to go hand-in-hand with the fact that infant circumcision is NOT medically necessary in order for the human rights aspect to be fully understood...especially those new to the debate surrounding infant circumcision and for those who have only ever heard (falsely) that it IS medically necessary.

The medical profession suggests and parents authorize invasive and painful procedures for newborns all the time (notwithstanding infant circumcision). However, the difference between other recommended procedures and infant circumcision is that there is, in virtually ALL cases, a medical NEED for such procedures. In order for the human rights aspect to be clear to those listening or reading the paper, it needs to be clear that there is NO MEDICAL NEED for infant circumcision...that the foreskin is a normal, natural body part of virtually ALL male children born to this planet (those born without one are considered to have a birth defect...sorry, can't remember the name of the defect).

If I was writing the paper, I think I would open with some of the bottom-line statements from medical organizations around the globe.

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." -American Academy of Pediatrics

"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed." -Canadian Pediatric Society

etc.

It then becomes very clear that removing a body part from an unconsenting person in the absence of medical need violates that persons right to their bodily integrity (at least it does for me).

Just my two cents.

Cindy
laidbackmomto2 is offline  
#10 of 31 Old 05-04-2003, 07:09 PM
 
KKmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: out talking to the crocuses
Posts: 2,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I know it seems like a relatively minor thing (everyone else brought up very pithy stuff), but I really don't feel like it's my right to make permanent, unnecessary changes to my son's body without his consent. If he wants to get circumcized when he's older, he can still do it (though I don't think anyone would want to!), so why would I make that decision for him? In some ways, I see it like deciding to give an infant a tattoo (although I think the tattoo would be more easily removed than a foreskin restored); it's a personal thing that he/she should be able to voice an opinion on.

Kristine
KKmama is offline  
#11 of 31 Old 05-04-2003, 07:33 PM - Thread Starter
 
nikirj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington
Posts: 4,952
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thank you everyone!

I ended up focusing on it not being a medically necessary procedure. I am working in the point that parents should not have the right to make this decision, but I feel that it would lose audience because a lot of them just aren't willing to hear that; and since the point is that people listen to the whole arguement, I am going to kind of pull that point in later.

If anyone knows of a resource that I can use for a couple of statistics (the percentage of botched circumcisions, overall prevelance, things like that), I would very much appreciate it. I cannot use heavily-biased sites like NoCirc unless the facts appear elsewhere.

Thanks for your help!

Mama, homeschooler, midwife. DD (13yo), DS (11yo), DD (8yo), DD (3yo), somebody new coming in November 2013.

nikirj is offline  
#12 of 31 Old 05-04-2003, 08:17 PM
 
Kat20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 161
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't know how many circumcisions are botched every year, but I do have a story that happened to a man my mom went to high school with:

He was performing a circumcision and botched it! There was so much damage that it was recommended the baby have a sex change. This dr was involved in a hugh lawsuit.
Kat20 is offline  
#13 of 31 Old 05-04-2003, 08:21 PM - Thread Starter
 
nikirj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington
Posts: 4,952
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Kat20
He was performing a circumcision and botched it! There was so much damage that it was recommended the baby have a sex change. This dr was involved in a hugh lawsuit.
Recommending a sex change!? Now that I could mention...that would sure scare the men!

Mama, homeschooler, midwife. DD (13yo), DS (11yo), DD (8yo), DD (3yo), somebody new coming in November 2013.

nikirj is offline  
#14 of 31 Old 05-04-2003, 08:42 PM
 
Kat20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 161
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Oh, I know! What man would want his or his son's potential to be ruined? You should definitely mention this! That's why I'm leary to bring this up story up with men, but I will definitely be telling my future husband and maybe I'll practice on some male friends I am not sure when it happened, but I'll ask my mom when she calls in a few days. Maybe there is an article about it.
Kat20 is offline  
#15 of 31 Old 05-05-2003, 05:11 AM
 
Frankly Speaking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Atlanta
Posts: 5,167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
There were two botched circumcisions the same day and same hospital, two different doctors:


http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/...t&p_topdoc=141


"Composite State Board of Medical Examiners issues public reprimand of Dr. H. Fred Gober and Dr. Leroy N. Moyer, Atlanta doctors who injured two baby boys while performing circumcisions last year at Northside Hospital. The Composite State Board of Medical Examiners has issued a public reprimand of two Atlanta doctors who injured two baby boys while performing circumcisions last year at Northside Hospital. One child later was forced to undergo a sex change operation and now is expected . . . . . . "



It was not divulged what happened to the other boy as a result of the accident.


http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/...t&p_topdoc=111

"Northside Hospital will pay $22.8 million to a boy severely injured in a circumcision accident at the hospital nearly six years ago, attorneys for the child said Monday. However, Northside spokeswoman Karen Koch denied that a final settlement had been reached and declined further comment. The child, who is now 5 years old, had his penis severely burned in the August 1985 mishap. His attorneys said he will never be able to function sexually as a normal male and will require . . . . . "



Both boys lost their entire glans in the accidents.

The site is a pay site. 10 articles for $5.95.



Frank
Frankly Speaking is offline  
#16 of 31 Old 05-05-2003, 06:55 PM
 
Sarah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"One child later was forced to undergo a sex change operation and now is expected ..."

When are these idiots going to realize that forced genital cutting is not the soultion to forced genital cutting. So now this little boy had an artificial vagina that his mother is going to have to dilate with am (ehem) child sized plastic dildo (as IF CHILDREN ARE SUPPOSED TO BE PENETRATED!!) and that is going to be good for him?

Start the violation by tearing his foreskin off his glans- start by cramming your metal probes into the innermost private spaces of his infantile sex organ- finish him up with a perscription for estrogen and a permanant gender identity problem not to mention an impossible role to play in the straight or gay world and these F-ers think that is a solution!?

It is better to be a surgical mutant infertile and chemically enhance woman that to be 100% the man you are without a dick. How insulting is that to you? If you are a man- you should be insulted... if you are a woman you should be insulted. If you are intergendered you already know the horror that is happening to these kids. And this is not even a case of making a decision to push someone's gender toward a more definitive physical appearance- (which in itself is WRONG) this is a total corruption.

OH I AM LIVID.

If a man wants to get a sex change when he is an adult and wants to do what it takes to have a vagina when he is an adult- fine. To put a child through that is worse than evil, worse than barbaric... and they actually say the word FORCED... what do they mean by that? Do they mean pushed beyond his own will and desire- or do they mean that things were so bad that they had no other option? They actually think that totally mucking up someone's gender is a solution to totally mucking up someone's genitals? This is INSANE! Someone get me out of this acid trip from hell. These people are un flipping believable! Why are they not in JAIL for even thinking they could make such a perverted mess with a human being sexually.
This is worse than molesting, worse than incest, worse than rape, worse than brainwashing, this is in my opinion a MURDER. The boy who was born was MURDERED by those people who took such liberties with who he is again and again. How can they think they have the right to take his whole gender? His entire name? His whole sex organ? His role as a father? The place in this world that he was made to fill, the relationships that he was supposed to have- as a BOY. How DARE they take that from him!

And think they can create a mannequin to fill some place they think they have for people without penises. Women are not just people without penises!!! That is so insulting I can't believe his mother did not want to kill the person who would suggest it. I am not a woman by my lack of a penis!! And cutting off a boys' penis does not make him any more a woman that slapping a fake beard on my face would make me a man. Are these doctors so stupid that they could invest millions of dollars in the physicality of such a stupid cruel and unethical lieing premise?

Did I mention that I am furious!?
Sarah is offline  
#17 of 31 Old 05-06-2003, 12:54 AM
 
Frankly Speaking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Atlanta
Posts: 5,167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think the board just melted down and my screen is smokin'.




Frank
Frankly Speaking is offline  
#18 of 31 Old 05-06-2003, 02:17 AM
 
Christy1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Michigan Corn Field
Posts: 5,301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Sarah:



I LOVE your posts because you say what I am afraid to say.

~Christy crochetsmilie.gif, mom to DD Sage (12-2003) joy.gif and DS Isaac (04-2012)  babyboy.gif, wife to Josh geek.gif.

Christy1980 is offline  
#19 of 31 Old 05-07-2003, 06:30 AM - Thread Starter
 
nikirj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington
Posts: 4,952
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Here's what I've got (warning: long and intended to not draw off people who aren't so open-minded): (Edited to add: and the paragraphs didn't cut off right, so I'm putting them in now) (OH, and YOU GO SARAH)

Imagine: your baby boy has just been born. You have touched him for the first time, held him for the first time, looked into his eyes and connected with him. You slept an uneasy night in the hospital, excited and worried, ready for your new life with your new baby to begin. Hours before you leave the hospital, you hand over your new baby boy to be circumcised. You don’t really think much about it; after all, it is just something that we do for baby boys, right?

You don’t see what happens next, and perhaps it is better that you do not. Your son is strapped to a metal tray, arms and legs splayed looking for all the world like a frog prepared for dissection. But the subject in this case is wide awake, unsedated, alert. In strides the doctor. He will receive four hundred dollars for this procedure. It is just one of many that he will perform today (“First do no harm?” Not when there’s money involved, apparently). He leans over your baby, who is sprawled most unnaturally on cold metal, probably already crying because it is cold, and the position is so unlike the comfortable curl he assumed in the womb.

The doctor smears topical anesthetic (if your son is lucky) on the most sensitive area of the body, the portion of the body with the very densest concentration of nerve endings. He pulls foreskin away from the glans of the penis, ripping delicate tissues not meant to be parted until 3-8 years of age. By now your son is screaming, and perhaps has already passed out (what many parents think is “sleeping through circumcision” is actually passing out from the pain). A circular clamp is inserted and tightened, roughly chomping off skin, breaking nerves, bursting blood vessels. Your son’s nervous tissue is fully formed, the first system in the body to mature, and he experiences the full range of sensations as any adult would, but lacks the communicative ability to do anything but cry. Most of the remaining conscious babies pale, scream in high-pitch, try to tear themselves away; but they are small, helpless, new. The doctor makes a swift cut along the clamp, carefully (we should hope) snipping away the remaining connections to the glans of the penis.

When you next see your son, there are few indications of the horror that has just occurred. His body may still shake, and you may tell yourself that he is cold. He is bleeding, but you tell yourself that this is normal. Newborns lack tears, so his face is clean, and they lack the ability to talk, so he can’t tell you about it. Some infants actually suffer a form of post-traumatic stress disorder for months after the ordeal. You take your baby home, along with your package about what to do if the bleeding doesn’t stop (which is common, since newborns lack important blood clotting factors) or the open wound on your son’s genitalia becomes infected.

Shocking, isn’t it? But no, alas, this is not fiction. This is truly what happens; and that is for the fortunate infants who have smooth, uncomplicated circumcisions (this can be a far more hideous affair for the 9 percent of baby boys who have complications) (“Infant” 1268). The procedure in question is referred to as Routine Infant Circumcision. It is painful, unnecessary, and the risks clearly outweigh the benefits. And yet, the majority of baby boys in the United States are still subjected to this procedure. The continuation of the practice of routine infant circumcision is almost wholly the result of a lack of education on the part of the parents. We need to eliminate the practice of routine infant circumcision by educating parents and professionals, and by encouraging insurance companies to drop the procedure from their policies.

Since 1971 the American Academy of Pediatrics has held that “no absolute medical necessity existed to mandate circumcision” (“Infant” 1268). Since there is no medical necessity for circumcision, this means that Routine Infant Circumcision is essentially a cosmetic procedure. This classes circumcision with things like face-lifts, liposuction, breast reduction, and a litany of other procedures that may have more medical merit, but are still not covered by insurance carriers. Cosmetic procedures are performed for myriad non-medical reasons, but in this case the most common include such ridiculousness as looking like the father, fitting in at the locker room, and looking better. I am assuming, for those who want their baby’s genitalia to match his father’s genitalia, that if the unfortunate child is born black-haired to a blond father he will be promptly dunked head-first into a vat of bleach, or if the poor dear should chance to have grandma’s separated earlobes they will be promptly hacked off. Further, looking like his peers should no longer be a consideration. Whatever locker-room teasing intact men may have experienced in the past, they are almost certain not to experience it now; every year the rate of circumcision falls, and it is estimated that by the time a baby born this year reaches the high school locker room, 40% of his peers will be intact as well.

You have perhaps been told that the foreskin is just useless tissue, so why not get rid of it? The fact of the matter is that this is a lie. The foreskin has a function. It is first of all the site of the second-densest concentration of nerve endings in the body, second only to the glans. This greatly heightens sensation. How can we possibly argue that we do no harm by cutting off nearly half of penile sensation? The foreskin also contains an abundance of glandular tissue. This tissue secretes a substance which is commonly known as smegma and is thought to be a rather dirty thing. It is not. It lubricates the area and provides protection for the glans. The glans of an intact male is in much better shape than that of a circumcised male, which has scar tissue and cornifications that both lessen sensitivity and make the glans slightly rougher, more skin-like than in the intact male. Smegma is an important part of this protection process. In fact, the foreskin of males is physically incapable of retraction until ages 3-8 for most boys, and puberty for some. This is not abnormal or dirty. In fact, it is highly healthy. The glans and foreskin as a combination is a self-cleaning apparatus. You should no more be trying to scour under a foreskin of a baby boy than you should be trying to clean out the vagina of a baby girl, or sterilize the earwax from your baby’s ears. It is not until a more mature state is reached, when the body is more sexually ready and is producing higher amounts of secretions and perhaps engaging in intercourse that this area needs cleaning, and then the foreskin will pull back on its own anyway. At this point, a simple retraction and wash with water during a daily shower will keep an intact man as clean as any of his circumcised counterparts.

The most frequent excuse to circumcise a healthy newborn boy comes from the fact that circumcised men suffer fewer infections and penile cancers. But there is doubt even in this well-established line of reasoning. In the words of the American Academy of Pediatrics: “In the absence of well-designed prospective studies, conclusions regarding the relationship of urinary tract infection to circumcision are tentative” (“AAP” 383). Recent press has given much credence to circumcision as a method for STD prevention, but seriously, STDs are NOT prevented by circumcision; their rates are merely lowered. I would much rather see my child practicing safe sex than relying on the statistically dubious value of chopping off a protective portion of his penis. Further, the American Academy of Pediatrics still stands by their 1989 statement regarding studies on STDs and circumcision: “The evidence is conflicting and methodologic problems render these reports inconclusive” (“AAP” 382). Finally, in the risk/benefit analysis, the risks clearly outweigh the benefits. It is estimated that nearly 1:10 circumcisions result in complications (which can range from fairly mild problems, like excessive bleeding, to mistakes serious enough cause death or to warrant recommendation of a sex change – resulting in lifelong physical and psychological damage), while penile cancer (a very treatable cancer) strikes just 1:100000 intact males, and UTIs (extremely treatable, with extremely rare instances of permanent damage) are estimated to increase approximately tenfold. While some parents are comfortable throwing the odds out the window and circumcising despite the fact that the risks clearly outweigh the benefits, I refuse to face even the slightest chance that a choice I make may result in death or lifelong damage to my son when the alternative is so simple; don’t circumcise. This is a choice my son can make for himself in the future, anyway. While a circumcision cannot be undone, a man unhappy with being intact can opt for a circumcision later in life. It is unlikely, however; 99.9% of uncircumcised males report being happy with their intact genitals. And in the exceedingly rare event that my son should need a circumcision for medical reasons later on in life, his genitals will be larger, giving more space for error; he will be able to report discomfort, heading off infection sooner; and he will be able to keep infection-causing feces and urine off the open wound, something not possible for a diapered newborn.

We are lucky we live in America, a country of free choice. So why, when this procedure is not necessary, are we taking that right from our sons? Why do we assume that we can authorize this elective procedure when really, it can wait until they can make the decision for themselves? And why, in this country that purports to be about free choice, do we have the highest rate of circumcision in the first world? The AAP statement, that “the procedure has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks,” is by far the wimpiest of all these first-world countries (“AAP” 382). The Canadian Medical Association flat-out says that “circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed,” the Australian College of Paediatrics says that it will “continue to discourage the practice of circumcision in newborns,” and infant circumcision is so rare in Europe that no such recommendation exists (“Circumcision” 687). In any other context, tattooing for example, we would find the idea that we would make a permanent decision for a child without medical need absolutely preposterous. Many other countries see it this way. We need to leave the idea of this being a matter of parental choice behind and let the decision be one made by our sons, and only considered by ourselves if serious medical conditions arise.

Routine Infant Circumcision is an idea whose time has long passed. It has been tried and tested on millions and millions of men, and yet no significant evidence of medical benefit has ever been found. It maims thousands of babies every year, some of them severely disabled for life. And it is so, so simple to stop this. Don’t circumcise your babies. Tell your friends, if they will listen, not to circumcise theirs (or at least to take a fresh look at the evidence). Tell your insurance company that if it must fund cosmetic procedures, the hundreds of millions of dollars it would save every year would better spent fixing faces of severely injured children (currently not covered by many providers!) or perhaps on outreach to poorer countries. Routine Infant Circumcision is a problem that we can solve, and we can solve it quickly and easily by the simple act of NOT doing.

Mama, homeschooler, midwife. DD (13yo), DS (11yo), DD (8yo), DD (3yo), somebody new coming in November 2013.

nikirj is offline  
#20 of 31 Old 05-07-2003, 09:48 AM
 
Sarah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Good job! I hope you don't mind some constructive criticisim.

Three things-

Where did you learn that the glans is more sensitive than the foreskin? (I think it's the reverse) About the innervation densities- if you can't prove this- that "fact" will be blown out of the water... if you change your statement to emphasize importance without stating rankings you would be much safer.

I think four hundred dollars is a high estimate for an infant circumcision- maybe once anesthesia and hospital fees are tacked on- but my Drs charge $200 for a circumcision, and many I have heard are in that ballpark. You don't want to be discredited for exaggerating. In New York, a Dr. who does a medicaid funded circumcision gets under $12. Although I do believe that money is a motivator- I do not think they are getting paid that much to do it... (the whole question of the foreskin aftermarket is another testy and as of yet- undocumented for the benefit of the general public $$$ maker.) How much does a bioteck company pay for an infant foreskin? it could be that surgeons would willing do circumcisions for free if they can profit enough on the human flesh harvest.


In the PURPOSE section you mention sensitivity and smegma. You said NOTHING of the mechanical function of the glide mechanism for normal human intercourse- this is essential! Destroying the glide mechanism is how the victorian drs thought they could keep a boy from masturbating, it is why "F you raw" is an American term for a long night of sex...

I would never try to promote non-circumcision by trying to glorify smegma, it is simply not a good selling point. I'm not scared of smegma but I know better than to try to tell people, "Don't circumcise so your child can have smegma under his foreskin."

The foreskin is moist because it is an internal surface- but it should not be discribed as a slime producing gooey slick... it's NOT. You have to rememebr that many of the people you are addressing don't even know what it looks like- their mind will fill in the blanks with the worst possible images and you will do the opposite- disgust, not convince them. The lubrication benefit of the foreskin is mechanical, not wet.

OK_ I gotta go run to a LLL meeting! I have some other stylistic ideas, but no time. When are you turning it in?

Love Sarah
Sarah is offline  
#21 of 31 Old 05-07-2003, 01:32 PM - Thread Starter
 
nikirj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington
Posts: 4,952
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hello Sarah!

Thank you :-)

I got the nerve density stats from my physiology class. We are, coincidentally, covering male reproductive anatomy this semester. It is interesting to note that very little is known about the foreskin tissue except for that it has high nerve density and that much of it is glandular (a lot of speculation about what exactly the glands are doing, but I keep seeing "function is not known"). And yet we cut it off. If we got back into medical history we see that for a very long time, medical professionals had very little idea what the brain was for.

I didn't go into intercourse just because I didn't want to get too explicit, and because the paper is already 8 pages long (assignment was for 5-6 pages). I agree that the sexual function of the foreskin is highly important, but am wondering what exactly my readers will get out of this, you know? How do I get it into the paper in a short, factual way? (In short, what is the positive effect you get by being intact during intercourse?)

The $400 quote I got from my mom, who is a perinatal nurse. Perhaps I should revisit the issue. She is anti-circ as well and may have conveniently exaggerated.

This is due on Friday and so I have another day to revise it.

Thanks for your thoughts! It was very helpful.

Mama, homeschooler, midwife. DD (13yo), DS (11yo), DD (8yo), DD (3yo), somebody new coming in November 2013.

nikirj is offline  
#22 of 31 Old 05-07-2003, 01:47 PM
 
Frankly Speaking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Atlanta
Posts: 5,167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The issues of sexual function and consequences is not well documented and very much open to counter claims. (I have great sex, My BF has no problems, etc.) This one part of the issue could be a book all by itself. Probably for the intent of this paper, it is best left alone.

Marilyn Milos, the Director of NOCIRC told me that the national average for a circumcision paid by the parents is about $300.00. Your Mother's experience may be accurate for the hospital where she works but I have also seen figures of $150.00 and one doctor reported being paid as little as $12.00 by Medicaid.



Frank
Frankly Speaking is offline  
#23 of 31 Old 05-07-2003, 06:05 PM
 
Sarah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Frank!- NIKRJ... you guys are having a problem with the sexual function aspect? What about it is disputable- this is not a qualatative assesment... you are not saying "It is better" or "If feels nicer" or "this group of people is MORE satisfied"

here is the deal-

Human sexual function is designed for the human penis to be covered with a loose sheath of skin, human intercourse is designed with lubrication mainly to enable penetration, but the majority of the movement of coitus is facilitated by the movement of the penile skin over the erectile tissue- which acts as a buffer between the vaginal tissue and the penile skin. When you remove 30- 50% of the skin system of the penis and destroy that rolling mechanical action- you reduce the mechanics of intercourse to skin on skin rubbing with places an undue requirement on lubrication.

Now- listen carefully- some people might want to be rubbed raw- some people might want the glans to work like a plunger sucking all the vaginal fluid out of a woman, if africa some people cram their vagina full of herbs to dry it out because that is the preferred way to have sex there... in the USA they might fill their vagina with so goo they bought in a store to make it slippery...

which is better- honestly- that is NONE OF MY BUSINESS.

It is not for me to judge if a circumcised man enjoys sex more or less than an intact man- that is entirely beside the point-

WHAT IS THE POINT is that circumcision destroys a part of the normal mecahnical function of the human genital pair

An aspect that you ENTIRELY neglected to mention.

A CRUCIAL extremely important understanding about the foreskin... it is not a cover for the real penis- it is a integrated part of the sex organ and the act of the old in and out!

Parents might feel that they have a position to make health decisions about their child, but do they have a feeling that they have a position to make decisions about how much of their normal sexual function they would keep?

What if, instead of asking, "Circ or nocirc?", the doctor asks, "You have to make some decisions considering how your son will experience sex, you can bind his erection in a tight sheath of skin and externalize his internal sex parts. This option might make him masturbate with an artificial product because in order to stimulate the deep pressure nerves inside his glans he would have to squeeze harder than would be comfortable for dry skin- his sex partners will also experience more friction than his normal penis would provide- or if you leave him intact, he will be able to roll his hand over his glans smoothly with his foreskin, and stimulate himself with deep pressure without any friction, for intercourse this will be the normal human model ... the choice is yours- ?"

I would venture to guess that this would make a mother very uncomfortable... to think that something she would do could so dramaticly change the way that a man experiences his own body.

The way his body functions is HIS, it does not have to stand up to any qualatative asessment- it is his- period. If he wants it different- that is option. But NO ONE can make an argument for why it is a mother's perogative to decide how much of her child's sexual function they can keep.

Frank I am horrified that you would suggest that this mechanical function is at all disputed or open to counter claims- it is a reality, it is the PURPOSE of circumcision to destroy it- if that is not the very thing they are trying to destroy- what are they trying to do?

I mean this is silly- you don't need to read a study- you simply need to wrap your hands around two penises and yank up and down- even a chimp could figure out that what is going on is different.

They can not deny this function- what is to dispute?

They can only dispute if this function is important to sexual enjoyment- but at that point they are openly debating how much of a person's sexual function they have an entitlement to keep.

Can anyone argue that people do not have a right to 100% of their human sexual function?

You don't have to take a position that one way of being is better- you only have to take the position that altering another person's sexual function is unethical.

the problem is that many many people choosing circumcision do not even know how the foreskin functions for intercourse and masturbation because they have never seen or experience it and because their is a wholesale silence about it because people are afraid that some circumcised guy might get his feelings hurt if someone implied that he is not 100% sexually.

You don't even try to say that circumcised guys don't enjoy sex- that is a LIE! They LOVE sex... OF COURSE!... but 100% of your sexual function is yours and 100% of what is taken is not someone else's to take- that is the only quantifying that needs to be done.


Also- I said this before and I'll say it again- I would go with the ethics of using medicasl power to do cultural modifications is an criminal misuse of power. Regardless of the parental decisions- physicians have very clearly defined codes and guidelines they are SUPPOSED to adhere to, cutting genitals in the absence of medical need is nothing more than sexual mutilation and they do not have the authority to do that. If a Dr uses a knife outside their professional jurisdiction it is assault. I believe that circumcision of healthy male infants is criminal sexual assault by a Doctor. they do not have any right to act on the wishes of the parents- regardless of the motivations of the parent- their ethical duty supercedes that. Infant circumcision goes against all of the tennets of the AMA code of ethics.
Sarah is offline  
#24 of 31 Old 05-07-2003, 06:59 PM
 
lise brit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: california
Posts: 89
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just one more idea,

Before you start presenting your paper, show them a video of a circ. It will get people's attention right away and you will have it for the rest of the presentation. It will be incredibly powerful!!! (Don't show a bris, show a hospital circ).

Lise Brit
lise brit is offline  
#25 of 31 Old 05-07-2003, 08:51 PM
 
Nathan1097's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Senior-Title-Less!
Posts: 3,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't know what the others have said yet, but here are my few points on it:

"Your son is strapped to a metal tray...." Its plastic, not metal. Are you allowed to use photos? There are photos of a Circumstraint you can print.

The price of a circumcision varies, as does the amount the doctor will get. There are hospital fees and physician fees- both which add up to the cost of a circumcision. In the hospital, a doctor who is "on call" at the time of your baby's circumcision (the morning after he is born, usually) and in your OB's "group" in hospitals are usually the ones assigned to do "rounds" for the circs. However, some do have that baby's particular pediatrician or the mothers obstetrician do the circ. at a specific time. Sometimes later at the pediatrician's office. All depends.

You should mention the most-common methods of circ: GOMCO, Plastibel, and Mogen. And emphasize that there is NOT a "non-cutting" method, as lots of people think there is.

The basics of a circumcision are: the foreskin is separated from the glans- either with a probe or hemostats (locking clamps); the hemostats are locked vertically along the center of the foreskin; cut is made to make room for the bell; bell inserted and clamp tightened to keep the cut from bleeding later. Then the circular cut is made. Its difficult to describe and be suscinct yet accurate. There is a video online that does this- a slide show of sorts. (See http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/methods.html ) In the GOMCO method, once the clamp is on, there should be NO remaining foreskin attachments. By this time, the foreskin actually isn't feeling the cut because its above the crush of the GOMCO- and besides, even IF the baby is feeling it, he is already worn out enough to not give a care! Is there any way you could use the intact.ca video? They have VHS copies. You could explain that its been edited by about 5 minutes because of the 5-minute wait for the crush to "take", too. That one is probably the best video to use overall because it DOES show the whole procedure. You can't see the whole baby, though, but you could also maybe type out what the doctor and dad are saying on the side to have them have just to KNOW what is being said, as they won't be able to take that in while the video is playing- too much information! Just a thought. I can type out what they are saying, if you want. Its extremely interesting actually!

Also, breast reduction can be a medically-indicated procedure. Just thought you'd like to know that. :-)

You might liken the sensitivity of the foreskin's opening to that of the lips of the mouth. And the difference between intact and circ'd tactile sensation as running a finger along the top of your hand, and then the palm of your hand. These are things EVERYBODY can relate to!

You can look for any material you'd like to use at http://www.CircumcisionQuotes.com/

Oh- and I wouldn't go on about smegma like that. I know its not easy to get a lot of points into one presentation, but its better left un-mentioned, unless someone asks after. Then you can just tell them that its the same as women have between their labia and is a natural lubricant.
Nathan1097 is offline  
#26 of 31 Old 05-07-2003, 09:12 PM
 
Frankly Speaking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Atlanta
Posts: 5,167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Sara:

You very well *know* that I know all of that. The problem is that Niki is already over the limit of her paper and to add more things in is not going to help. There really is not much in reliable double cross checked scientific research about the amount to sensation lost and there is a lot of conflicting information. Then there are the guys that claim that sex is wonderful and couldn't be better even though it has never dawned on them that there are nerves and receptors in the foreskin. Somehow they just think it is a numb piece of skin with no feeling whatsoever. To present the case sufficiently to counter this, you would have to write a book, a very large book. (War and Peace maybe?) For the time alotted, this is just too much to attempt and could easily jeopardize the credibility of the entire presentation.
Frankly Speaking is offline  
#27 of 31 Old 05-07-2003, 10:06 PM
 
Nathan1097's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Senior-Title-Less!
Posts: 3,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I also have the 3+-minute version of the intact.ca video. Its obviously hugely edited, but it might fit into your needs for a speech better. Its available online to download. Not sure how you'd show it to people in a speech though.
Nathan1097 is offline  
#28 of 31 Old 05-07-2003, 11:16 PM - Thread Starter
 
nikirj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington
Posts: 4,952
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks guys!

Sarah, nobody is denying that the foreskin is important to intercourse. I am just saying that I do not feel like I can make my case in the space alotted, and to make an incomplete case is often the best way to get yourself discredited. I am also trying to talk to people about why they shouldn't circumcise a newborn and feel that talking about the mechanics of sexuality might be a little out of place in the overall context of the paper.

I did edit the section where I talk about smegma. I softened the wording quite a bit and left some of it out entirely. You guys are right; I will stick to the lubrication aspect rather than mention something that people will likely visualize negatively.

Unfortunately, I cannot provide videos. The presentations are informal in nature and more for the purposes of constructive criticism; there is no real "presenting" as it usually occurs in front of a class with visual aids, it is a matter of reading what we have and getting feedback about what kinds of fallacies it may contain, or how to counter arguments that we hadn't thought of.

According to my lab manuals, the procedure is done on metal. The information is admittedly older, though, as my instructor wrote the manuals just for our use and was schooled in the early 50s. I obviously need to look this up and revise. I do not, however, want to go into detail about the different types of the procedures. The little narrative at the beginning was more to bring the subject to life than to actually educate, if that makes any sense.

Thanks again everyone :-)

Mama, homeschooler, midwife. DD (13yo), DS (11yo), DD (8yo), DD (3yo), somebody new coming in November 2013.

nikirj is offline  
#29 of 31 Old 05-07-2003, 11:37 PM
 
Nathan1097's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Senior-Title-Less!
Posts: 3,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by nikirj

Unfortunately, I cannot provide videos. The presentations are informal in nature and more for the purposes of constructive criticism; there is no real "presenting" as it usually occurs in front of a class with visual aids, it is a matter of reading what we have and getting feedback about what kinds of fallacies it may contain, or how to counter arguments that we hadn't thought of.

According to my lab manuals, the procedure is done on metal. The information is admittedly older, though, as my instructor wrote the manuals just for our use and was schooled in the early 50s. I obviously need to look this up and revise. I do not, however, want to go into detail about the different types of the procedures. The little narrative at the beginning was more to bring the subject to life than to actually educate, if that makes any sense.

Thanks again everyone :-)
I guess I was picturing a persuasive speech with audio or visual aide.

Circumstraints have been around for quite some years and even if not, its what they use now, so I hope you don't go by this lab manual, frankly.

Just so your narritive is accurate is all. It needs to be seen as facts, not emotional scare-tactics. And if they find that even one part of it is incorrect, then your credibility- and their outlook on the subject- will be tarnished. Because for a lot of these people, this is going to be their first image of a circumcision and one they will pass on to many others.

Also, I re-read your post and one thing to watch out for:

Every negative sentace you put, people will remember! Phrase things in a positive light! If you say "DON'T KILL SQUIRRELS" they will remember "... Kill Squirrels" So saying "Smegma is NOT filthy slime" is saying "Smegma=filthy slime" because they will remember these sound-bytes in their head and putting those two images together will backfire on you.

You have to be specific and concise!
Nathan1097 is offline  
#30 of 31 Old 05-08-2003, 12:01 AM
 
Sarah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"I am also trying to talk to people about why they shouldn't circumcise a newborn and feel that talking about the mechanics of sexuality might be a little out of place in the overall context of the paper."

The unwillingness of people to equate cutting off a piece of someone's penis with human sexuality is exactly how parents can have an overwhelming urge to accomplish this sexual modification and have the unashamed ability to enlist a doctor to help them accomplish this ...and yet still be so inhibited they don't have the courage to face the clerk at a video store to rent a porn move with an intact actor in it.


Don't you get it? The sexual function loss is MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE PAIN!! Pain is temporary, pain is something that CAN be addressed... but PAIN is NOT the issue- mucking up someone else's sexual anatomy/function is the issue, and if it not made clear that circumcision is not some benign tidying, then people might as well assume that it IS some benign tidying.

The lack of explanation of sexual function is why the AAP statement is biased in favor of circumcision.

You spent the majority of your paper mooning about some horrific pain and intrusion into this baby dreamy moment, and you neglect to mention how this is going to sexually change a man for the rest of his life...

so what -it hurts?- give him a shot, it's no big deal and he won't remember it anyway. If you don't make it clear why this is a sexual imposition then circumcision is nothing more than a unnecissary option.

Unethical sexual imposition?

Unnecissary but benign option?
Sarah 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