"Forced Genital Cutting," and Jewish circumcision

[Koldo]

He's asking how many posters have been circumicised and do not even know that they have penile sensitivity issues as a result of their circumcision.

When, all who have posted already (unless I'm blind and have missed something) have said that they're fine.

So now, you explain to me, how I was supposed to have read what he posted.

It is unappropiated to call a loss of sensitivity, when they are fine, a serious health problem.

If there was a loss of sensitivity, they wouldn't know,as most people are circumcised as babies.

 

[dawny0826]

It is unappropiated to call a loss of sensitivity, when they are fine, a serious health problem.

If there was a loss of sensitivity, they wouldn't know,as most people are circumcised as babies.

I apologize. He did use the words, "serious health risk", not "serious health problem". But, he's still referring to the procedure as a serious health risk, so what's the differentiation, here?

I still haven't seen any statistics that null or invalidate the positions of the policy of the AAP and information provided by the CDC, which are the positions that I agree with and would make my decisions based upon.

 

[Koldo]

Then, by the same logic, it's justifiable for those in oppoosition to a plethora of human rights to support them...up to whatever "certain point" they deem acceptable.

If they wish to do so...

By the way, female circumcision is a cultural practice on some ethinic groups. Are you fine with it? I doubt so. Which means that you are only respectful of cultural practices up to a certain point as well. We only diverge on where the line should be drawn.

None of you have provided evidence or support for your opinions against the procedure to suggest that the procedure yields the type of trauma that you project.

What type of trauma have i projected?
Quote me on that, please.

Until you can do that, you're just projecting as if you should be able to tell parents how they should raise their children, what decisions they should making. You expect parents not to raise their children within the auspices of their faith and you're okay with that. Circumcision is an important piece to the faith of many and you feel that because you have an objection to the procedure, even though the AAP and CDC is telling Americans...it's okay...make your own decisions in confidence...it's okay from a health perspective to have your infant circumicised.

You don't have to do it. It's ultimately your choice. They aren't make a recommendation either way or pushing. But, parents can make this decision in confidence WITHOUT feeling as if they've done something wrong from a scientific/medical perspective.

Somehow, you and others are above this and feel have the ability through your opinion, to trump hundreds of studies and the actual real life experiences of people who have been circumcised and have cared for infants after the procedure.

It is a matter of principles, as i have already stated.

There is no significant reason to submit the vast majority of children to this procedure, which results in a ( pretty much ) permanent body modification.

I feel the same way about every other ( permanent ) body modification. A child's body belong to themselves and no one else. I see no reason as to why parents should be given the authority to do this with their children.

 

[Koldo]

I apologize. He did use the words, "serious health risk", not "serious health problem". But, he's still referring to the procedure as a serious health risk, so what's the differentiation, here?

I still haven't seen any statistics that null or invalidate the positions of the policy of the AAP and information provided by the CDC, which are the positions that I agree with and would make my decisions based upon.

The difference is evident when we compare:

'Ha ha! You're insinuating that a good number of US men have serious health problems as a result of their circumcision and they don't even know it!'

To:

'Ha ha! You're insinuating that a good number of US men had serious health risks as a result of their circumcision and they don't even know it!'

Isn't it?

These sentences mean different things.

 

[Apex]

These sentences mean different things.

Both are equally ludicrous.

 

[DallasApple]

If there was a loss of sensitivity, they wouldn't know,as most people are circumcised as babies.

I think that is the point.How would you know you have less sensitivity without your foreskin if you have never experienced sex with foreskin in tact?

Also the foreskin serves other functions.Its as if its treated as a useless body part that is only there to pose some future risk.Like a wisdom tooth or something.

 

[DallasApple]

And as far as the risk of STD's as has been mentioned we are talking infants.At an appropriate age you then would educate the child/adolescent.I think removing a body part of an infant ..just in case one day they decide to have unsafe sex with a person who has an STD is *** backwards.

 

[dawny0826]

If they wish to do so...

By the way, female circumcision is a cultural practice on some ethinic groups. Are you fine with it? I doubt so. Which means that you are only respectful of cultural practices up to a certain point as well. We only diverge on where the line should be drawn.

Female circumcision isn't an acceptable practice in the United States. Period. We cannot compare it to male circumcision as such a procedure is not deemed to have medical or scientific-proven benefit. It's a no-dispute form of mutiliation and psychological abuse.

An American pediatrician would NEVER mention it during routine conversation with an expecting parent. Let's talk about another procedure which is actually common and discussed in the United States by parent and pediatrician, please.

What type of trauma have i projected?
Quote me on that, please.

In fairness, I will take ownership if I've made false assumptions about your stance. Perhaps you should enlighten me or link me to a post where you've stated your stance on the subject. I don't need your opinion, as I already know what that is. I'm interested in the statistical data that supports your opinion. If you have none, I would appreciate an answer to the following:

Do you believe that the penis in the OP is correct? Do you argue the policy statement of the AAP?

Your personal principles are of no concern to my family.

There is no significant reason to submit the vast majority of children to this procedure, which results in a ( pretty much ) permanent body modification. .

first of all, with statistics of circumicision rates declining, "vast majority" is not the best label to utilize. Second, outside the auspices of your mere opinion that this is permanent body modification, please support your opinion with something of substance.

I want you to explain to me outside the auspices of your opinion, why American parents should not be able to confidently make decisions regarding their children? Please, explain to me your objections with the policy statement of the AAP.

Otherwise, your agenda is to push your personal opinion upon the rights of others. American parents have the right to determine if this procedure is right for their child. It's opt in/out.

I feel the same way about every other ( permanent ) body modification. A child's body belong to themselves and no one else. I see no reason as to why parents should be given the authority to do this with their children.

I suppose you apply this same logic to viable pregnancy, in utero?

 

[dawny0826]

The difference is evident when we compare:

'Ha ha! You're insinuating that a good number of US men have serious health problems as a result of their circumcision and they don't even know it!'

To:

'Ha ha! You're insinuating that a good number of US men had serious health risks as a result of their circumcision and they don't even know it!'

Isn't it?

These sentences mean different things.

This is ridiculous.

 

[DallasApple]

Sure, if an adult wishes to do it, then fine. But seriously, people need to stop pretending it's about genuine medical concern over STD rates in infants, and just admit that the main reason it's still done to healthy boys today is for Religious/Cultural/Aesthetic reasons

I agree...the reduced STD risk is more like a "bonus" I think ..a way to justify an elective cosmetic surgery ....

 

[Koldo]

This is ridiculous.

How so?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The article referenced 500 studies, for which they've based their stance, Jeff.

Those studies are primarily in countries with high HIV rates and low condom usage; that's why they're doing the studies: to figure out if there's some other way to get HIV rates down.

Don't put words in my mouth. This isn't a discussion on safe sex practices. This is a discussion regarding a parental right to choose circumcision for their infant son.

When you bring STD infection rates into the equation, it most certainly is a discussion of safe sex practices, because STD infection rates are dominated by the people who don't practice safe sex.

I'm not playing this game with you. My stance is the same as it's been since the onset. I believe that parents should make educated decisions for their children and I don't believe that people like yourself should have the right to block them.

Again... I'm not trying to block them. As I said already, I think a circumcision ban would be unworkable.

For the umpteenth time, if in my personal experience, the infants that I cared for had seemed traumatized in any way by the procedure, or the men that I've known had been traumatized by the procedure or there were statistics that supported that this procedure was emotionally and/or physically scarring, I'd be advocating against it, right along with those of you in opposition.

... or if you paid attention to stories like the one from Songbird in one of the past threads, where she described the pain her son went through for weeks afterward because the doctor nicked his glans.

Do you at least acknowledge that circumcision hurts the child, during both the procedure and recovery?

Regardless as to whether the health benefits appear to be "a wash" or not, as you've stated on many occasions - parents have the right to determine whether the procedure is worthwhile for their children. They are the individuals to be held accountable alongside physicians if procedures go wrong or their children grow to later resent them.

You think that parents have the right to hurt their children for no rational justification? That's what this really comes down to.

You talk about infant rights (as it relates to this topic) knowing damn well that an infant can't make such a decision and couldn't consent to any type of procedure. PARENTS MAKE DECISIONS FOR THEIR BABIES.

Within limits. I think it's reasonable to put a painful, needless procedure beyond that limit.

You project as if it's yourplace to determine the decisions that parents make, contingent upon your view of what's acceptable and not acceptable. You demonize those who are Jewish, Muslim, Christian and who choose the procedure for what they feel are important benefits for their child. And you think it's absolutely justified.

I do, actually. I have no problem saying that it's wrong to hurt babies, and that it disrespects a person to try to force them into a particular religion.

Statistically, show me what you're protecting our children from? This is my question to you. What are you protecting our children from?

Pain. Having pain inflicted on them.

You're not going to get a different argument from me. And you're going to construe and interpret statistics in any way you please. You're convinced that those who circumcise their infant boys are child abusers - a mindset that I loathe - I don't know why we bother with this, to be honest. We can't learn from each other.

I have no illusions that I'll change your mind. I engage with you so that the lurkers can see it.

And I don't care whether you loathe my mindset. In fact, I'd probably count it as a good sign if I was hated by the "hurting babies on a whim" camp. It's like that Johnny Cash quote: "it's good to be hated by the right people."

 

[Koldo]

Female circumcision isn't an acceptable practice in the United States. Period. We cannot compare it to male circumcision as such a procedure is not deemed to have medical or scientific-proven benefit. It's a no-dispute form of mutiliation and psychological abuse.

An American pediatrician would NEVER mention it during routine conversation with an expecting parent. Let's talk about another procedure which is actually common and discussed in the United States by parent and pediatrician, please.

On the context of that reply, it doesn't matter. I was talking about cultural practices, and how you will only respect them to a certain extent as well.

You don't respect female circumcision, isn't that correct?

In fairness, I will take ownership if I've made false assumptions about your stance. Perhaps you should enlighten me or link me to a post where you've stated your stance on the subject. I don't need your opinion, as I already know what that is. I'm interested in the statistical data that supports your opinion.

The statistical data that supports your opinion is the same that supports mine.

If you have none, I would appreciate an answer to the following:

Do you believe that the penis in the OP is correct?

No.

Do you argue the policy statement of the AAP?

Yes. I don't agree with its principles.

Your personal principles are of no concern to my family.

As i am not an american citizen, indeed.
However, if i were it would matter.
Our principles influence the politics of our countries: abortion, circumcision, public health care, food stamps,etc.

first of all, with statistics of circumicision rates declining, "vast majority" is not the best label to utilize.

That's not what i meant by that sentence.
Let me clarify:

There is no significant reason to submit children to this procedure ( unless there is a health problem ), which results in a ( pretty much ) permanent body modification. The cause for the vast majority of circumcisions isn't a health problem.

Second, outside the auspices of your mere opinion that this is permanent body modification, please support your opinion with something of substance.

I am sorry, but i don't comprehend what you are asking for.
Do you disagree that circumcision is a body modification?

I am using this definition: 'Body modification (or body alteration, called body mutilation by detractors) is the deliberate altering of the human anatomy or phenotype.' - Body modification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I want you to explain to me outside the auspices of your opinion, why American parents should not be able to confidently make decisions regarding their children? Please, explain to me your objections with the policy statement of the AAP.

Because a parent shouldn't be able to violate the infant's right to its own body with a ( permanent ) modification unless there is a clear health benefit.

Otherwise, your agenda is to push your personal opinion upon the rights of others. American parents have the right to determine if this procedure is right for their child. It's opt in/out.

Same goes for you then.

I suppose you apply this same logic to viable pregnancy, in utero?

If i understood that right, this is a matter with some nuances.
Does it suffice to say that before viability ( 5~6 months ) I don't consider the fetus to be a person ( and therefore it doesn't have the same rights as everyone else ) ?

 

[DallasApple]

or if you paid attention to stories like the one from Songbird in one of the past threads, where she described the pain her son went through for weeks afterward because the doctor nicked his glans.

Or how about when my infant son's skin(what they left) adhered (started growing attaching to the glans)...and they had to rip it back causing extreme pain..he cried until he passed out..I think he was at around 2 weeks old..the pain and swelling went on for another 2 weeks before it was healed.

Now you can say well hes fine now and doesn't remember it..he's not 'permanently" traumatized..but he sure as hell was traumatized when they did the initial surgery and over that complication ..And for what? So just in case one day he has unprotected sex his risk are "lowered" (not eliminated)that he catches an STD?

Not to mention again that the foreskin serves a FUNCTION...Its there for a reason.Its not just an extra piece of useless skin only there to cause infection.

 

[dawny0826]

Those studies are primarily in countries with high HIV rates and low condom usage; that's why they're doing the studies: to figure out if there's some other way to get HIV rates down."

I know this, but, it's still valid statistical information. The CDC posted information regarding clinical trials in American STI clinics. Though, these men were already exposed to HIV, the trials yielded a 58% reduction in HIV spread.

There's no insinuation at all that circumcision is to replace safe sex practices. Studies suggest and it doesn't matter whether it's a penis in Africa or a penis in American, that if these are the statistics WITHOUT factoring in condom usage- circumcision yields additional level of protection.

There are other STIs that were examined as well, including HPV, the leading cause of cervical cancer and genital herpes.

And the article that I linked, asks this question...if we were to have access to a vaccination for HIV, would we not consider immunizing our children? Some of us would. Some of us wouldn't.

If you're presented with an option for your child and you believe, after examining information presented, that it's a worthwhile preventative measure, it's a necessary religious measure or WHATEVER, the AAP and other medical groups report that you can safely make such a decision for your child, but, should pause to fully evaluate all risks involved.

On a decision-making level, it's not much different, given the statistics of complications, then deciding as to whether or not you're going to have your child's wisdom teeth removed or have them immunized. It hurts like hell to have your wisdom teeth removed, but, we have it done. It hurts like hell to have braces, but, we have it done, so that our kids can enjoy straight teeth. Maybe our kids don't care about straight teeth, once they reach adulthood? It's a risk you take. YOU, as a parent, decide how that "net benefit" translates to your child.

This is my problem with your logic. You pick and choose what's okay for other people's children. Some pain would be okay because you consider there to be net benefit. In other situations, it's just straight up child abuse, regardless of the parents' intention and the reasons for their decision.

When you bring STD infection rates into the equation, it most certainly is a discussion of safe sex practices, because STD infection rates are dominated by the people who don't practice safe sex.

No crap.

Again... I'm not trying to block them. As I said already, I think a circumcision ban would be unworkable.

Are you in the position to block circumcisions in the US? I don't understand how you could try to block them to begin them.

... or if you paid attention to stories like the one from Songbird in one of the past threads, where she described the pain her son went through for weeks afterward because the doctor nicked his glans.

Actually, I did pay attention and reached out to her on the thread or in comment and extended my condolences.

I've never said that these types of stories do not occur. What I've stated repeatedly, is that her story is not of the statistical majority.

Do you at least acknowledge that circumcision hurts the child, during both the procedure and recovery?

You think that parents have the right to hurt their children for no rational justification? That's what this really comes down to.

Within limits. I think it's reasonable to put a painful, needless procedure beyond that limit.

I do, actually. I have no problem saying that it's wrong to hurt babies, and that it disrespects a person to try to force them into a particular religion.

Pain. Having pain inflicted on them.

I have no illusions that I'll change your mind. I engage with you so that the lurkers can see it.

And I don't care whether you loathe my mindset. In fact, I'd probably count it as a good sign if I was hated by the "hurting babies on a whim" camp. It's like that Johnny Cash quote: "it's good to be hated by the right people."

Of course, I realize that infant male circumcision can yield pain and discomfort. My daughters cried at the dentist, when they were immunized, when they had their iron checked, when I had to pull a shard of glass from my daughters' foot because she trampled over a glass shard, etc.

As a parent, I'm intelligent enough to decide if a procedure is worthwhile for my child and would be worth any pain or discomfort. I cried when my daughters were immunized, because I couldn't stand to see them cry as babies. I still hate to see them cry. But, I don't hesitate to make decisions that I feel are in their best interest.

I've also been present when baby boys have been circumcised and haven't heard cries or have heard short cries that are quickly cut off with swaddling. I've changed many diapers in my 34 years, helping my mother and sisters care for babies. I've never seen a baby boy cry or act as if he was in discomfort, while healing.

So, bottom line, Jeff, regardless as to what type of a child abuser you choose to label me as, I stand by my own right as a parent to make the decisions which I feel are best for my children. I will tell you that I do know what's best for my children. Not you. If you want to argue that, be my guest.

You don't know me. You don't know my husband, yet, you've claimed that his parents abused him - a sentiment that he doesn't share with you, as a circumcised male.

Believe what you want to believe. I have much more exposure w/ circumcision than you do and I know that Father Heathen and I will always approach issues regarding our children in love and through educated efforts.

 

[DallasApple]

I cried when my daughters were immunized, because I couldn't stand to see them cry as babies.

Immunizations have virtually eradicated many deadly and crippling diseases ...and you are talking about a needle stick and quick recovery ...not slicing off a body part of an extremely sensitive organ .. and altering permanently an organ ..I wouldn't compare the pain involved..let alone the benefits.

 

[dawny0826]

On the context of that reply, it doesn't matter. I was talking about cultural practices, and how you will only respect them to a certain extent as well.?

Female circumcision is NOT an acceptable practice in the United States. What the hell is your point?

This is not a cultural practice here in the States. Period. If this were to occur, those involved would immediately be arrested and charged with child abuse.

There's no comparison. Female circumicision isn't a cultural practice in the States. Let's move forward, now.

The statistical data that supports your opinion is the same that supports mine.

Really!? Do you agree with this statement from the AAP?

http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/Newborn-Male-Circumcision.aspx?nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token&nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token&nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token

After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs.

No.

Golly Gee Worlickers! We agree on something.

Yes. I don't agree with its principles.

Fair enough, but, would your disagreeance with these principles be enough to restrict the rights of other people in a free society for doing what they feel is right?

As i am not an american citizen, indeed.
However, if i were it would matter.
Our principles influence the politics of our countries: abortion, circumcision, public health care, food stamps,etc.

I actually agree with you, here and I do, actually respect anyone who votes or supports politics according to their own convictions. In fact, I argue that American politicians are full of crap and do in fact, bring their own religion, moral and ethics to work with them every day. I don't understand how you could not when you, as an individual are driven by those personal convictions or at least you should be, in my opinion.

That's not what i meant by that sentence.
Let me clarify:

There is no significant reason to submit children to this procedure ( unless there is a health problem ), which results in a ( pretty much ) permanent body modification. The cause for the vast majority of circumcisions isn't a health problem.

I respect you interpretation of the statistical info provided. My counter is that I also respect those who interpret and accept the reported health benefit and feel that it's important for their children. Additionally, I have to respect those who value the procedure as incredible importance, per their faith.

I am sorry, but i don't comprehend what you are asking for.
Do you disagree that circumcision is a body modification?

A minor body modification, that cannot be likened to female circumcision. And I don't believe that parents who opt in for the procedure are child abusers. Does this answer your question?

I am using this definition: 'Body modification (or body alteration, called body mutilation by detractors) is the deliberate altering of the human anatomy or phenotype.' - Body modification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does does intent not weigh in at all, here?

Because a parent shouldn't be able to violate the infant's right to its own body with a ( permanent ) modification unless there is a clear health benefit.

I get you, but, again, there are people who construe the same statistics DIFFERENTLY. One couple may find benefit in the reported health benefits for their child. If they approach the procedure in this light, are they really violating their child's rights, when their intentions are honorable?

Same goes for you then.

I'm a proponent for choice and educated decisions.

 

[DallasApple]

when I had to pull a shard of glass from my daughters' foot because she trampled over a glass shard, etc.

That was to TREAT an injury not inflict an injury.Foreskin is not an injury that needs to be treated like a foreign object stuck in your foot.Removal of the foreskin IS the injury.

I've never seen a baby boy cry or act as if he was in discomfort.

Well I have.

have been circumcised and haven't heard cries or have heard short cries that are quickly cut off with swaddling

That does NOT mean they are not still in pain.And my babies cried..Its ridiculous to suggest with all those nerve endings in the foreskin its not excruciating pain to cut it off.Seriously your going to say your babies cried when they got shots? But when a highly sensentive part of an organ is cut off they don't cry?

Your either not being very honest or you are in denial.

 

[DallasApple]

[QUOTE My daughters cried at the dentist, when they were immunized, when they had their iron checked][/QUOTE]

But boys don't cry at all ..or just a little bit when you slice off the skin of their penis..it barely hurts at all...not like shot..and it doesn't hurt at all to have a bleeding scabbed over penis for the next week or so being exposed to urine and feces every day and rubbing up against a diaper..Nope..they don't even notice it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I know this, but, it's still valid statistical information.

Yes and no. It's interesting in context, but it's likely not directly applicable to other cultures and circumstances.

As an analogy, I'm sure we could find plenty of cases where someone had a spinal injury in the wilderness and transporting them to help was what saved their life. This doesn't mean that it's a good idea to move a spinal injury victim in the city, where an ambulance with a backboard will arrive in minutes.

The CDC posted information regarding clinical trials in American STI clinics. Though, these men were already exposed to HIV, the trials yielded a 58% reduction in HIV spread.

Let's back up a moment. Here's the summary for the study cited by the CDC:

RESULTS: Overall, 1096 (2.7%) of 40,571 clinic visits yielded positive HIV test results. Among 394 visits by patients with known HIV exposure, circumcision was significantly associated with lower HIV prevalence (10.2% vs. 22.0%; adjusted prevalence rate ratio [PRR], 0.49 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.93]). Conversely, among 40,177 visits by patients with unknown HIV exposure, circumcision was not associated with reduced HIV prevalence (2.5% vs. 3.3%; adjusted PRR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.86-1.15]), and age >or=25 years old and diagnosis of ulcerative STD were associated with increased prevalence.

Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection amo... [J Infect Dis. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI

If you're correct and circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection, then there should have been a positive correlation in both groups, not just one. In people who visited the clinic who were unsure if they'd been exposed to HIV, the prevalence rate ratio was exactly 1.00... i.e. circumcision provided no benefit at all. Why do you think this is?

There's no insinuation at all that circumcision is to replace safe sex practices. Studies suggest and it doesn't matter whether it's a penis in Africa or a penis in American, that if these are the statistics WITHOUT factoring in condom usage, circumcision provides that additional level of protection.

No, that's not what the studies say. You have to think a bit more about what's going on. The study group and the control group are both made up of a variety of men with a variety of characteristics: some engage in high-risk practices, some don't. Some use condoms consistently, some don't. If the study was done well, then they would have controlled for these sorts of variables by doing their best to ensure that the study group and the control group are the same except for the variable being studied.

Now... only certain people in those groups will become infected; a 1% infection rate doesn't mean that each person is "1% infected" with HIV; it means that 1% of the people are 100% infected and the rest aren't infected at all.

Other evidence we have shows that consistent condom usage provides very good protection against HIV infection, so odds are that in that study group, more often than not, the people that are getting infected will be the ones who don't use condoms consistently.

And the article that I linked, asks this question...if we were to have access to a vaccination for HIV, would we not consider immunizing our children? Some of us would. Some of us wouldn't.

Sure, I'd consider it. But why vaccinate babies against HIV? Why not take a cue from the other vaccine we have for an STD: HPV vaccines don't get given out until early adolescence. At that age, yes, the parent can still override the child, but at least the child is old enough to express an opinion.

If you're presented with an option for your child and you believe, after examining information presented, that it's a worthwhile preventative measure, it's a necessary religious measure or WHATEVER, the AAP and other medical groups report that you can safely make such a decision for your child. On a decision-making level, it's not much different, given the statistics of complications, then deciding as to whether or not you're going to have your child's wisdom teeth removed or have them immunized. It hurts like hell to have your wisdom teeth removed, but, we have it done. It hurts like hell to have braces, but, we have it done, so that our kids can enjoy straight teeth. Maybe our kids don't care about straight teeth, once they reach adulthood.

It's quite different, actually:

- there's a need for immunization in childhood to protect the child himself/herself. There are also compelling public health reasons not to let unvaccinated children run around infecting other people.

- when wisdom teeth need to be removed, it's a time-critical thing. If it's delayed, the patient will suffer quite a bit later. If they don't need to be removed, the dentist usually won't recommend that they be removed.

Also, wisdom teeth aren't removed until the child is able to express an opinion on the matter... if it isn't in adulthood anyhow - I got mine taken out at 19.

This is my problem with your logic. You pick and choose what's okay for other people's children. Some pain would be okay because you consider there to be net benefit. In other situations, it's just straight up child abuse, regardless of the parents' intention and the reasons for their decision.

I think you do exactly the same thing, only with different (and IMO arbitrary) lines for what's acceptable and what's not. When analogies get thrown around like cutting off a child's earlobes, tribal scarification, tattooing , or just giving a baby a good hard slap, you're happy to whine and complain that they're trying to equate circumcision with child abuse. Well, if you really believe what you're arguing here, then who are you to call those things child abuse?

No crap.

I'm glad you agree. Now remember it and apply some common sense to the statistics you like to throw around.

Are you in the position to block circumcisions in the US? I don't understand how you could try to block them to begin them.

I just said that I'm not out to block circumcisions anywhere. But I'm all for other approaches to reduce them, like education, which can cross borders, defunding routine infant circumcision from public health insurance (which isn't really an issue in the US), and supporting the right of hospitals and individual doctors to refuse to perform circumcisions.

Actually, I did pay attention and reached out to her on the thread or in comment and extended my condolences.

I've never said that these types of stories do not occur. What I've stated repeatedly, is that her story is not of the statistical majority.

So as long as the complication rate of circumcision is less than 50%, it's irrelevant?

Of course, I realize that infant male circumcision can yield pain and discomfort. My daughters cried at the dentist, when they were immunized, when they had their iron checked, when I had to pull a shard of glass from my daughters' foot because she trampled over a glass shard, etc.

As a parent, I'm intelligent enough to decide if a procedure is worthwhile for my child and would be worth any pain or discomfort. I cried when my daughters were immunized, because I couldn't stand to see them cry as babies. I still hate to see them cry. But, I don't hesitate to make decisions that I feel are in their best interest.

I've also been present when baby boys have been circumcised and haven't heard cries or have heard short cries that are quickly cut off with swaddling. I've changed many diapers in my 34 years, helping my mother and sisters care for babies. I've never seen a baby boy cry or act as if he was in discomfort, while healing.

So, bottom line, Jeff, regardless as to what type of a child abuser you choose to label me as, I stand by my own right as a parent to make the decisions which I feel are best for my children. I will tell you that I do know what's best for my children. Not you. If you want to argue that, be my guest.

There are actions that are beneficial for children, even though they cause pain. There are also actions that cause pain to children without an associated benefit.

You don't know me. You don't know my husband, yet, you've claimed that his parents abused him - a sentiment that he doesn't share with you, as a circumcised male.

I don't think that his parents were evil, if that's what you're getting at. If his parents were brought up to think of circumcision as normal, and if his father was circumcised himself, I'd probably be inclined to see them as victims, too.

Believe what you want to believe. I have much more exposure to circumcision than you do and I know that Father Heathen and I will always approach issues regarding our children in love and through educated efforts.

Well, with any luck, generations that follow us will continue to be less and less exposed to circumcision than you have been. It will be a win-win: you can keep on believing that you know better than everyone else while fewer and fewer children get hurt.