WootBot


quality posts: 14 Private Messages WootBot

Staff

Earmuffs, Dads. This one's gonna hurt. Today we're talking about circumcision. Why? Because the American Academy of Pediatrics has just revised their stance on the issue, claiming that the preventative health benefits of circumcision outweigh the associated risks.

If you're interested, you can read the story on CNN here.

The AAP does stop short of actually recommending the procedure, saying that it's up to you to make the decision based on religion, culture or health. But based on results of the scientific studies they claim to have "examined" it's clear where they stand. They credit their revision to evidence that suggests that circumcision results to a decreased risk of urinary tract infections, certain cancers and sexually transmitted diseases including HIV.

But there are hardcore opponents to circumcision that say the procedure is not only barbaric, but a violation of the child's legal rights. In Germany, a court actually ruled that religious circumcision of children is a crime which, understandably, has angered Jewish and Muslim groups.

So what do you think? Should circumcision be outlawed regardless of religious beliefs? Should it simply be postponed until the child is capable of making his own decision? Or do you side with the AAP who thinks the health benefits outweigh the risks?

Photo by Flickr member Lisa Rosario Photography, used under a Creative Commons License.

DavidGoldsteen


quality posts: 0 Private Messages DavidGoldsteen

Parents make decisions for their children all the time. Maybe we should wait until children are 18 before we take out their tonsils, or give them shots.

Sorry, I think that argument is anti-Semitic in the broadest sense -- it's both a Jewish and Muslim custom being attacked.

scuzzle_but


quality posts: 1 Private Messages scuzzle_but

It's genital mutilation, pure and simple. The foreskin is not "just a piece of skin." There's a reason it is (was, in sadly too many cases) there. If an 18 year old chooses to re-affirm his faith in god, then let him make that decision at that time. How can you seriously compare tonsillectomy and immunization shots to infant circumcision?

I bet you are repulsed that in parts of Africa, female genital mutilation (removal of the clitoris) occurs at an alarming rate. The stance is not anti-semitism, or anti-african culturism, it's anti-child brutality.

bamzilla


quality posts: 3 Private Messages bamzilla

Maybe if we had better sex education here in the states a lot of those concerns brought up by every pro-circ organization in the US would be moot. Also, I guess every other country that doesn't circ is doing it wrong? Things just don't add up. Maybe use countries better representative of the United States when comparing statistics instead of, say.. 3rd world countries.

livingstonl


quality posts: 1 Private Messages livingstonl

It can't be compared to FGM. One has health benefits (or possible benefits). And the other has health concequences and sometimes results in death. One has a religious beginning and the other a "male dominated" cultural beginning.

runnerfrog13


quality posts: 10 Private Messages runnerfrog13
livingstonl wrote:It can't be compared to FGM. One has health benefits (or possible benefits). And the other has health concequences and sometimes results in death. One has a religious beginning and the other a "male dominated" cultural beginning.


Circumcision sometimes results in infant death too. I guess you didn't realize that.

Of course it can be compared to FGM, despite it's beginnings. MGM began in the US from doctors claiming it would decrease the rates of masturbation. Health benefit? I think not. There ARE health consequences to circumcision, but it's become so predominant and routine that many times parents don't even realize or aren't told that those consequences are from circ.

I don't feel like a fanatic or hardcore on this issue, but from my research, I wish that there were more objective and correct information distributed to parents instead of them relying on some blanket statement like this. I'm also very dissapointed in the AAP for revising their stance and becoming the first health organization in the world to recommend routine infant circumcision.

trinakepler


quality posts: 0 Private Messages trinakepler
DavidGoldsteen wrote:Parents make decisions for their children all the time. Maybe we should wait until children are 18 before we take out their tonsils, or give them shots.

Sorry, I think that argument is anti-Semitic in the broadest sense -- it's both a Jewish and Muslim custom being attacked.



***TONSILS BEING REMOVED - IS A MEDICAL NECESSITY, CUTTING OFF A PIECE OF GENITALIA IS NOT FOR AN RIC.

I'M JEWISH, AND UNLIKE MOST RELIGIONS THERE ARE PARTS THAT EVOLVE, AND THROUGH THAT EVOLUTION THERE ARE MANY OF US THAT DO NOT BELIEVE IN RIC...IT'S BARBARIC, AND THE RISK GREATLY OUTWAYS THE BENEFIT. THERE IS RISK OF DEATH, COMA, SHOCK, BOTCHED RIC (CURVATURE, NERVE DAMAGE, ETC).

trinakepler


quality posts: 0 Private Messages trinakepler
scuzzle_but wrote:It's genital mutilation, pure and simple. The foreskin is not "just a piece of skin." There's a reason it is (was, in sadly too many cases) there. If an 18 year old chooses to re-affirm his faith in god, then let him make that decision at that time. How can you seriously compare tonsillectomy and immunization shots to infant circumcision?

I bet you are repulsed that in parts of Africa, female genital mutilation (removal of the clitoris) occurs at an alarming rate. The stance is not anti-semitism, or anti-african culturism, it's anti-child brutality.



TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU - ALSO YOU LEFT OUT THAT UP UNTIL THE 1990'S FEMALE CIRCUMCISION WAS STILL ROUTINELY PRACTICED IN THE US...WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? PEOPLE ARE REPULSED ABOUT IT BEING DONE TO GIRLS, BUT NOT TO BOYS?! IT'S LIKE SAYING I'M GOING TO TAKE MY 2 DAY OLD SON/DAUGHTER TO GET A NOSE JOB, BECAUSE A SMALLER NOSE CAN POSSIBLY REDUCE THE CHANCE OF A SINUS INFECTION BY .0001% (ABOUT WHAT RIC REDUCES UTI'S OR STD'S). RIC (ROUTINE INFANT CIRCUMCISION) IS BARBARIC, CRUEL, AND COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY. I AM JEWISH AND I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE PROCEDURE, IN FACT I AM PROUD TO SAY I'M AN INTACTAVIST (SUPPORT THE US TO REMAIN INTACT). I COULD GO ON AND ON ABOUT HOW MUCH I WISH THAT USA WOULD BAN RIC AND THE ACTUAL REASONS WHY, NOT JUST THE MYTHS

darbytarr


quality posts: 0 Private Messages darbytarr

My father was an adult onset diabetic. This led to inflexibility of the foreskin. At the age of 65 he ended up being circumcised. It wasn't a fun experience, but was done with a "local." With the rise in the diabetes % in the general population, this should be considered as an argument FOR.

sparksnsmoke


quality posts: 0 Private Messages sparksnsmoke

As the parent of a baby boy I had to make this decision rather recently. We read lots of studies, talked to cut and uncut men and ultimately decided to leave him intact. We agreed it was unnessary and painful for a baby to go through when they first get on the earth. Also, the studies just listed are from developing and 3rd world countries, not the US. Sure, removing a finger can lesson the chance of that finger getting cancer but does that really make sense? There is a much higher chance of breast cancer but not many choose to get preventive mastectomys. If you teach your son about condoms you can prevent all the STDs and disorders circumcision is supposed to help avoid. It really makes no sense to have the creator make a human perfect and the first thing we do is chop a part off because we think we know better. I continue to be happy with my decision and I hope my intact son believes it is the right choice in the long run.

runnerfrog13


quality posts: 10 Private Messages runnerfrog13

Re: "...decreased risk of urinary tract infections..."

A number of these infections come from washing the genital area with soap, which irritates the skin, changes the pH which makes it easier for bacteria to live. The AAP's (incorrect) advice to care for intact boys by retracting and washing with soap will actually cause more UTI's, ironically providing them circular validation.

As a frequent sufferer of UTIs all through my growing up years, there are plenty of non-invasive ways to treat them, the foremost being cranberry juice, medication, and proper hygiene. Surgery should be a last choice to treat what might be POTENTIAL UTIs. It's a permanent condition compared to a very transitory problem. We don't advocate surgery to treat female UTIs, we medicate, why would surgery be a reasonable treatment suggestion for male UTIs? (which are less common than females, by the way, and still happen to circumcised men too)