Do you consider circumcision child abuse?

[Rakhel]

Well, I guess I am alright then. Though i must admit i am no brad pitt. HOPEFULLY ALRIGHT.

well of course you're no Brad Pitt. You, my friend, are Jessica Rabbit.

 

[Titanic]

well of course you're no Brad Pitt. You, my friend, are Jessica Rabbit.

Yes I am Thank's for cheering me up even if you did not intend to.

 

[dawny0826]

Wait? That's your argument circumcision prevents cancer? There are other factors that go into penile cancer other than "penlie cancer is more prevalent" in Africa, Asia and South America, where people might might be less likely to be circumcised.

Food for thought:

"A new study published yesterday in Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies estimates that more than 100 baby boys die from circumcision complications each year, including from anesthesia reaction, stroke, hemorrhage, and infection...

The study found that approximately 117 neonatal (first 28 days after birth) circumcision-related deaths occur annually in the United States, one out of every 77 male neonatal deaths. The study also identified reasons why accurate data on these deaths are not available, some of the obstacles to preventing these deaths, and some solutions to overcome them.

Previous studies estimated the death rate as low as two per year to as many as 230. The study collected data from hospital records and government sources to attempt to provide a more accurate magnitude of the problem.

To put this in perspective, about 44 neonatal boys die each year from suffocation, and 8 from auto accidents. About 115 boys die annually from SIDS, nearly the same as from circumcision during the same neonatal period (first 28 days from birth).

Because of the inadequacies of the death-certificate system and the apparent lack of investigation, it is easy to see how the medical system could either unwittingly or intentionally obscure the true cause of these deaths."

Circumcision | Infant circumcision causes 100 deaths each year in US | ICGI - Genital Integrity & Intactivism

Hell no.

My argument is that parents should be able to determine whether circumcision is right for their babies, be it for religious or other reasons, without being labeled "child abusers". People have likened the procedure on RF and elsewhere to mutilation, which I find absurd.

As a parent, I should be able to educate myself on the pros and cons of a procedure and decide what's in the best interest of my child.

And I think that parents reserve the right to determine and interpret benefit.

As I've mentioned more than once on this very thread, I am in no way telling other people that they should have this procedure done to their sons. But, it ****** me off that other people are arrogant enough to label those who do opt for this procedure, condoning an act of "abuse". If you deem it abuse...fine. But, don't throw those labels in someone else's direction, when they've had the opportunity to discuss the procedure with a pediatrician and then make a determination as to what's in the best interest of their child.

Everyone insists that there are no health benefits to the procedure, yet the Center for Disease Control and Prevention publishes the following:

• Male circumcision reduces the risk that a man will acquire HIV from an infected female partner, and also lowers the risk of other STDs , penile cancer, and infant urinary tract infection.

• For female partners, male circumcision reduces the risk of cervical cancer, genital ulceration, bacterial vaginosis, trichomoniasis, and HPV. Although male circumcision has risks including pain, bleeding, and infection, more serious complications are rare.

CDC - Male Circumcision - Research - Prevention Research - HIV/AIDS

Ultimately, anyone is going to find stats to support their stance on the topic and as such, it's probably moot for anyone to share their links and articles.

In the US, the procedure is offered to you as a choice. If it's something that you choose for your child, you should be educated and willing to accept any negate consequences. Parents have to answer to their adult son, if there are complications. It's really no one else's business anyway.

 

[Me Myself]

Two corrections.

First, circumsicion is mutilation by definition.

Second, the way human beings are treated in all stages of life is every huuman beings business.

Thats all.

 

[dawny0826]

Two corrections.

First, circumsicion is mutilation by definition.

Second, the way human beings are treated in all stages of life is every huuman beings business.

Thats all.

 

[jmn]

Please stop this thread!! Cant stand the sight of it. Who cares, newborns survive
BIRTH! Who cares about circumcision.

 

[Father Heathen]

Let's all tone down the melodrama. I appreciate the concern, but I assure you that my peepee is fine, as is my psychological health despite the supposedly traumatic experience.

 

[Me Myself]

Mine is great but I doubt they are talking about already cut people who had no complications on the proceddure and no complain about having their foreskin removed for ever.

I am kind of torn on this one now. I am not sure where does the evidence points where it comes to health risks and benefits @_@

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ultimately, anyone is going to find stats to support their stance on the topic and as such, it's probably moot for anyone to share their links and articles.

In terms of health, it's basically a wash: circumcision has benefits and risks that are nearly equal. According to some medical sources, the benefits are slightly greater than the risks; according to most medical sources, the risks are slightly greater than the benefits... but either way, it's close.

This means that for all practical purposes, circumcision really comes down this: parents placing more importance on their aesthetic or religious preferences than extreme pain inflicted on their infant child. If you don't like it when people call this abuse, fine - I think it speaks for itself without the term.

 

[Father Heathen]

Apparently they sell the removed foreskins for skin graft material and cosmetics.

...think of the burn victims? Can I use that to support my argument? :162:

 

[jmn]

continue your indigenous Ideas

 

[dawny0826]

continue your indigenous Ideas

Thanks! We will. :hug:

 

[Alceste]

Mine is great but I doubt they are talking about already cut people who had no complications on the proceddure and no complain about having their foreskin removed for ever.

I am kind of torn on this one now. I am not sure where does the evidence points where it comes to health risks and benefits @_@

Maybe some historical perspective would help. Originally, the justification was that God and tradition demanded it. As time passed and that position became less compelling, it became fashionable (based on extremely faulty research) as a way to control a huge range of male problems, especially male masturbation. That Victorian study was obviously bollox, and also lost its persuasive power. So a new argument emerged that it can prevent extremely rare or trivial health problems, or do an extremely poor job of preventing diseases that condoms prevent much better.

Basically, it's one big long continuum of people coming up with shiny new reasons to do something completely absurd that they have always done. Every time one rationalization dies, a new one is born.

Nevertheless, circumcision is no less absurd now than when people first decided God wanted us to slice up our babies' genitals. It's exactly as absurd as it was when people thought it would keep men from masturbating.

The shiny new rationale seems compelling only because it evolved in modern times to persuade a modern mind. The procedure itself is still completely absurd, and as I said at the start, if you were the first person to think of it, you'd obviously end up in jail, regardless of your rationalization.

 

[Alceste]

Apparently they sell the removed foreskins for skin graft material and cosmetics.

...think of the burn victims? Can I use that to support my argument? :162:

You certainly can, as long as the donors are consenting adults. It strikes me as a very noble thing to do - donate the tip of your pecker to a burn victim. It's not so noble to steal pieces of baby pecker when they don't even know what it's for.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It isn't that it is not child abuse? or it isn't that not having circumcision done is not irrating to the penis?

I can assure you that not being circumcised is not irritating to the penis in any way. it is the natural state.

 

[Aquitaine]

I can assure you that not being circumcised is not irritating to the penis in any way. it is the natural state.

I agree.

If anything I'd imagine it would be more irritating being circumcised, as if like having your eyelids chopped off!

 

[Sleeppy]

Maybe some historical perspective would help. Originally, the justification was that God and tradition demanded it. As time passed and that position became less compelling, it became fashionable (based on extremely faulty research) as a way to control a huge range of male problems, especially male masturbation. That Victorian study was obviously bollox, and also lost its persuasive power. So a new argument emerged that it can prevent extremely rare or trivial health problems, or do an extremely poor job of preventing diseases that condoms prevent much better.

Basically, it's one big long continuum of people coming up with shiny new reasons to do something completely absurd that they have always done. Every time one rationalization dies, a new one is born.

Nevertheless, circumcision is no less absurd now than when people first decided God wanted us to slice up our babies' genitals. It's exactly as absurd as it was when people thought it would keep men from masturbating.

The shiny new rationale seems compelling only because it evolved in modern times to persuade a modern mind. The procedure itself is still completely absurd, and as I said at the start, if you were the first person to think of it, you'd obviously end up in jail, regardless of your rationalization.

I think what Alceste is trying to say is: She's pro-choice for male foreskin. Which makes sense, however, she also neglects several details. A google search shows all the studies and arguments.

Circumsicion was to be a reminder. It worked for millions of people over a span of generations. The reminder was for God's guidance. The reminder that sacrifice is vital to growth and understanding. The reminder sacrifices the foreskin of the penis, undoubtedly so whenever we did anything from getting clothed, to *******, to having sex - that we'd remember God's guidance. It serves as something very important to people all around the world, for that regard, and is bolstered in whatever degree by recent medical study.

 

[Aquitaine]

I think what Alceste is trying to say is: She's pro-choice for male foreskin. Which makes sense, however, she also neglects several details. A google search shows all the studies and arguments.

Circumsicion was to be a reminder. It worked for millions of people over a span of generations. The reminder was for God's guidance. The reminder that sacrifice is vital to growth and understanding. The reminder sacrifices the foreskin of the penis, undoubtedly so whenever we did anything from getting clothed, to *******, to having sex - that we'd remember God's guidance. It serves as something very important to people all around the world, for that regard, and is bolstered in whatever degree by recent medical study.

Justifying circumcision for religious reasons isn't very convincing, Sleeppy....

 

[dawny0826]

In terms of health, it's basically a wash: circumcision has benefits and risks that are nearly equal. According to some medical sources, the benefits are slightly greater than the risks; according to most medical sources, the risks are slightly greater than the benefits... but either way, it's close.

This means that for all practical purposes, circumcision really comes down this: parents placing more importance on their aesthetic or religious preferences than extreme pain inflicted on their infant child. If you don't like it when people call this abuse, fine - I think it speaks for itself without the term.

I can respect your reasoning for not wanting such a procedure done for your son and for raising a brow at others who choose the procedure for their children.

What I don't respect, is the manner in which you accuse parents of inflicting "extreme" pain upon their children.

They do not always project discomfort during or after the procedure. Seriously, the babies that I've cared for, are more upset by gas or seem more bothered if they are removed from their swaddling.

Healing time usually takes about a week. As with any surgical procedure, there are risks. If you're a loving parent, you thoroughly consider any risks and are prepared to handle any consequences, further, taking ownership of them.

There were risks involved in giving birth to my children, particularly giving birth to my second baby via C-section. After an emergency C-section, you're given a choice, in the states for your second birth. I elected for surgery after thoroughly weighing the risks to both myself and the baby. I got hell for it from these "natural Mom's" who told me that my baby would be born with upper respiratory ailments and it would be my fault. They told me all sorts of ugly things - that I was being selfish and that the risk of uterine tear was very low.

But, you know what, I did what was best for me, my baby and my family. I already had a three year old. And my daughter was born healthy and without any upper respiratory problems. I however, had a scare on the operating table, which is par for the course with any surgical procedure.

As a woman...as a mother...I make educated choices and a I live with the consequences. Forgive me if I find arrogance in your notion that the "extreme pain" inflicted upon these babies translates to child abuse.

Have fun rolling your stats over in your mind and blanket labeling those in American (predominately) society who do not think as you do. I know the truth as to what this looks like it real life. I'm hanging with the "abused" and "abusers". The adults are doing just fine. The children are thriving, thank you.

 

[dust1n]

Hell no.

My argument is that parents should be able to determine whether circumcision is right for their babies, be it for religious or other reasons, without being labeled "child abusers". People have likened the procedure on RF and elsewhere to mutilation, which I find absurd.

As a parent, I should be able to educate myself on the pros and cons of a procedure and decide what's in the best interest of my child.

And I think that parents reserve the right to determine and interpret benefit.

As I've mentioned more than once on this very thread, I am in no way telling other people that they should have this procedure done to their sons. But, it ****** me off that other people are arrogant enough to label those who do opt for this procedure, condoning an act of "abuse". If you deem it abuse...fine. But, don't throw those labels in someone else's direction, when they've had the opportunity to discuss the procedure with a pediatrician and then make a determination as to what's in the best interest of their child.

Everyone insists that there are no health benefits to the procedure, yet the Center for Disease Control and Prevention publishes the following:




CDC - Male Circumcision - Research - Prevention Research - HIV/AIDS

Ultimately, anyone is going to find stats to support their stance on the topic and as such, it's probably moot for anyone to share their links and articles.

In the US, the procedure is offered to you as a choice. If it's something that you choose for my child, you should be educated and willing to accept any negate consequences. Parents have to answer to their adult son, if there are complications. It's really no one else's business anyway.

I wouldn't call it abuse either, but certainly it's something worth looking up. And that's a much better source for helping your argument. I couldn't follow your trail to penile cancer.