Genital mutilation or religious right?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Dawn, something occurs to me: what you said earlier about circumcision preventing problems with poop under the foreskin... are you speaking from experience?

I ask because I've never heard of anyone else ever mention this as a problem. I know that baby poop can get all sorts of places and be pretty nasty, but I can't see it getting under a boy's foreskin much easier than into a girl's vagina, and I've never heard anyone say anything like "gee, I hope we have a boy this time, because I really don't want to have clean poop out of a girl's vagina again."

Do you know what I mean?

 

[Father Heathen]

Get under what skin?

Welcome to Instant Rimshot

 

[kai]

This thread has been an education piece for me, as I didn't realize the male (or female, for that matter) objection to it, nor did I realize the objection to

routine circumcision for infant boys.

Per Wikipedia, the only Association, in the US, at least, that acknowledges the health benefits of the procedure, is the American Urological Association, and they encourage that the procedure is presented as an option and equally acknowledge risks.

The CDC provides information, seemingly, from the adult male perspective and there is no mention of infant circumcision. I can only assume, they frown upon it.

With the aformentioned stated, if I were to give birth to a son, I'm one to make informed decisions. I knew before participating in this thread that there's a consultation with a pediatrician BEFORE the procedure is done. I wouldn't consider having the procedure done without a consultation and reassurance that my son was healthy and would recover satisfactorily from the procedure. If I didn't feel confident or reassured, it wouldn't be done. It's as simple as that.

I strongly disagree with this blanket label that male circumcision is a form of mutiliation.

And I ask you...

How many diapers have you changed of infants who have had the procedure done? How many men have you been with who have had the procedure done? How many babies have you cared for, soon after the procedure?

Circumcision wounds heal within a week or two for infants. Umbilical chord stumps hang around longer at times than it takes for circumcision wounds to heal. I've cared for little ones and I've never noticed problems with wound care. I can't attest to this mutilation.

And I've never talked to a man with foreskin envy. I'd seriously like to have a conversation with such a man. I find that fascinating.

I find that a little unsettling

 

[Levite]

I think someone posted Circumcision fact and statistics
which amongst other things it says the following:

This is an anti-circ site. I wouldn't trust any information I found on it.

 

[gnomon]

This is an anti-circ site. I wouldn't trust any information I found on it.

But I could just say you are a pro-Circ member and that I can't trust anything you post. Being an anti-circ group doesn't mean that any information provided by them is de facto incorrect. They have sourced their factsheet and it's those sources which must be checked.

But I'm not gonna do it. I'm just taking a break from yardwork.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

This is an anti-circ site. I wouldn't trust any information I found on it.

Um, so if it's anti-circ, it can't be trusted? Are sites like this one any more reliable just because they de-emphasize stated risks of circumcision? If so, why?

-Nato

 

[Revoltingest]

Dawn, something occurs to me: what you said earlier about circumcision preventing problems with poop under the foreskin....

At the risk of committing TMI, my son is unsliced, & it was never a problem at all.
And I doubt that he's ever had issues with "chafing" from ill fitting drawers.

I surveyed 2 new fathers I know.
One went the slice & dice route cuz is was standard at that hospital, & he wanted his kid to look 'normal'.
(The docs profit handsomely from it.)
The other decided against it because he didn't like unnecessary surgery & because the doc recommended against it.

 

[Songbird]

How many diapers have you changed of infants who have had the procedure done? How many men have you been with who have had the procedure done? How many babies have you cared for, soon after the procedure?

Circumcision wounds heal within a week or two for infants. Umbilical chord stumps hang around longer at times than it takes for circumcision wounds to heal. I've cared for little ones and I've never noticed problems with wound care. I can't attest to this mutilation.

My son was "nicked" during his circ, and it took over a month to heal. It was a long cut, with a scar now, and feces and urine delayed healing and caused inflammation. I felt kind of sick whenever I had to change his diaper, and his legs stiffened from the pain. He had strong reactions to diaper changes for the rest of his diaperhood. I don't know how common that is, and I still wouldn't support any kind of ban. But just a relatively small cut on the glans caused a lot of pain for a long time.

 

[dawny0826]

Many. I have friends whose children were circumcised, and who I've baby sat regularly. To be honest, I don't see much difference between the two "states" - after the wound is healed.

This was my point. I hardly consider male, infant circumcision to be mutilation, per what you've stated.

How many diapers have you changed on baby boys who have NOT been circumcised?

For several babies, actually.

Without getting too specific, I'll just say my first husband was not circumcised, and we had four children together. Not a problem. Not an issue. Nothing negative to report whatsoever.

I've been with both "types" and sexual functions don't differ at all from what I can tell. Neither does the experience from a woman's perspective.

Sort of what I figured.

How many men have you been with who have not been circumcised?

None. Uncircumcised penises aren't overtly appealing to me.

Several - close friends and family. To be honest, I was appalled that these tiny babies were voluntarily wounded in such a sensitive spot. This played a critical role in my decision NOT to have the procedure done on my boys.

I don't mean this as an attack on your decision to have your boys circumcised. This is simply honest feedback on my part.

Fair enough.

 

[dawny0826]

I find that a little unsettling

What specifically is unsettling to you?

 

[dawny0826]

Dawn, something occurs to me: what you said earlier about circumcision preventing problems with poop under the foreskin... are you speaking from experience?

I ask because I've never heard of anyone else ever mention this as a problem. I know that baby poop can get all sorts of places and be pretty nasty, but I can't see it getting under a boy's foreskin much easier than into a girl's vagina, and I've never heard anyone say anything like "gee, I hope we have a boy this time, because I really don't want to have clean poop out of a girl's vagina again."

Do you know what I mean?

I know what you mean. Boys are equipped differently and it takes a blow out usually, for poop to travel "up there". They are usually easier to clean.

The ick factor isn't my only reason for not having a problem with infant circumcision.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I know what you mean. Boys are equipped differently and it takes a blow out usually, for poop to travel "up there". They are usually easier to clean.

The ick factor isn't my only reason for not having a problem with infant circumcision.

But there's a bit of a leap from "I don't have a problem with it" to "I want to do this (or have it done to my child)."

I don't have a problem with quilting, for instance, but unless something very unexpected happens in the future, I don't have any plans to do it myself. To get me to quilt, it wouldn't be enough for me not to take offense from quilting; it would have to hold some sort of appeal for me.

 

[dawny0826]

My son was "nicked" during his circ, and it took over a month to heal. It was a long cut, with a scar now, and feces and urine delayed healing and caused inflammation. I felt kind of sick whenever I had to change his diaper, and his legs stiffened from the pain. He had strong reactions to diaper changes for the rest of his diaperhood. I don't know how common that is, and I still wouldn't support any kind of ban. But just a relatively small cut on the glans caused a lot of pain for a long time.

I'm really sorry for your son. That does suck.

 

[Songbird]

I'm really sorry for your son. That does suck.

Thanks, dawny!

 

[dawny0826]

But there's a bit of a leap from "I don't have a problem with it" to "I want to do this (or have it done to my child)."

I don't have a problem with quilting, for instance, but unless something very unexpected happens in the future, I don't have any plans to do it myself. To get me to quilt, it wouldn't be enough for me not to take offense from quilting; it would have to hold some sort of appeal for me.

I've already explained to you that I value the benefit of lessening his chance of penile cancer, yeast infections and UTIs. These do happen, even to healthy people in the US.

These are my primary motivators. I don't value that skin like you do. But as I've stated before, I'd have a thorough consultation with a pediatrician BEFORE giving birth and again, AFTER giving birth. If I had any doubts as to whether or not his genitals or emotional state could handle it...it wouldn't happen.

If this doesn't seem rational to you, I'm sorry. This is where I stand.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've already explained to you that I value the benefit of lessening his chance of penile cancer, yeast infections and UTIs. These do happen, even to healthy people in the US.

But as I've touched upon several times now, this isn't a rational reason. You're trading a ~2% chance of UTIs and other issues without circumcision for a ~2% chance of sepsis and other complications with it. In terms of the long-term well-being of the child, it's a wash.

These are my primary motivators. I don't value that skin like you do.

It's not the skin I value so much as not inflicting pain on a child.

Would you consider it acceptable for a parent to give their week-old baby a good, hard smack for no particular reason? Would it placate your anger if the parent told you not to worry because the smack wasn't hard enough to cause any permanent damage? Even if they're right, it's still needless suffering inflicted on a helpless infant.

But as I've stated before, I'd have a thorough consultation with a pediatrician BEFORE giving birth and again, AFTER giving birth. If I had any doubts as to whether or not his genitals or emotional state could handle it...it wouldn't happen.

If this doesn't seem rational to you, I'm sorry. This is where I stand.

What you just described sounds rational. What you said before about "embracing the benefits" and ignoring the risks does not.

 

[dawny0826]

But as I've touched upon several times now, this isn't a rational reason. You're trading a ~2% chance of UTIs and other issues without circumcision for a ~2% chance of sepsis and other complications with it. In terms of the long-term well-being of the child, it's a wash.

Why is it so hard to understand that some parents would choose the possibility of benefit, when the average recovery period for circumcision is 7-10 days. Even if the chance for penile cancer is small, the chance of a UTI, isn't. That's quite common, especially for infant boys, WITH foreskin. you have that part WRONG.

It boils down to personal choice. You're presented an option and you make an informed choice. I applaud any parent for making an informed decision regarding circumcision, that they feel confident with. And I wouldn't belittle them for the decision, consider their choice a mutilation of their infant son or expect their son to grow up traumatized as a result of the experience. He won't remember.

It's not the skin I value so much as not inflicting pain on a child.

Yes. But, when done appropriately, pain can be managed. The wound usually heals within 7-10 days. Vasoline can protect the wound while it heals from urine and feces.

Would you consider it acceptable for a parent to give their week-old baby a good, hard smack for no particular reason? Would it placate your anger if the parent told you not to worry because the smack wasn't hard enough to cause any permanent damage? Even if they're right, it's still needless suffering inflicted on a helpless infant.

You're defining what's necessary and needless for other people. I for one would be perfectly capable of examining research and if presented with an option, determining whether a procedure is needless, on my own.

What of those with religious and moral obligations to circumcise, do you not find it arrogant to make the determination that circumcision is "needless" in these situations?

What you just described sounds rational. What you said before about "embracing the benefits" and ignoring the risks does not.

There are benefits to the freaking procedure. I have every right to embrace the fact that benefits exist. They do. I'm not ignorant to the risks. How have I in any way ignored the risks that are involved. I've simply stated that male circumcision from what I've seen, hasn't matched the depiction of mutilation that it was suggested as being, in the OP.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why is it so hard to understand that some parents would choose the possibility of benefit, when the average recovery period for circumcision is 7-10 days. Even if the chance for penile cancer is small, the chance of a UTI, isn't. That's quite common, especially for infant boys, WITH foreskin. you have that part WRONG.

Provide some evidence. I cited my source, a report from the Canadian Pediatric Association, that shows the rate of UTI in uncircumcized boys to be very low: A reduction from 2% to, say, 0.2% is a tenfold reduction, which sounds very impressive, but the difference is still only 1.8% of cases.

In 1985 Wiswell, Smith and Bass33 reviewed a cohort of 5261 infants born at an army hospital and found a higher incidence rate of UTI among the uncircumcised male infants (4.12%) than among those who were circumcised (0.21%). A subsequent review of the records of 427 698 infants (219 755 of whom were boys) born in US Armed Forces hospitals from 1975 to 1979 supported these findings, showing a 10-fold higher incidence rate of UTI among uncircumcised boys (1.03%) than among circumcised boys (0.10%).34 By comparison, the incidence rate among the female infants was 0.52%.

Neonatal Circumcision Revisited

So one study showed the rate of UTI for uncircumcised infant boys as 4%, another study showed it as 1%. The risk is on the order of magnitude I gave. I suppose if you want, we could take it as 3% (the average of those two studies) rather than the 2% I gave off the top of my head. Still, the rate is very low; UTIs in uncircumcised boys aren't "quite common".

Also, we should keep in mind that there are other viable strategies for reducing UTIs besides circumcision. From the same article:

On the basis of these observations, Winberg and collaborators47 suggested two alternative preventive strategies: deliberate colonization with nonpathogenic bacterial flora during the newborn period or the promotion of rooming-in to facilitate close contact between newborns and their mothers. The first strategy is analogous to the active colonization of the umbilicus and nasal mucosa undertaken in the past to arrest epidemics of infection with Staphylococcus aureus.48

These two strategies need to be evaluated further. One would expect both to have a low risk of complications. The second is in keeping with recent trends in maternal and infant care and could also have a low cost. If either strategy is successful, it may prove to be a more cost-effective way to prevent UTI among male infants than circumcision. Such an approach could also be applied to the prevention of UTI in female infants, since adherence of bacteria to epithelial cells also plays a role in the development of UTI in girls.45

Yes. But, when done appropriately, pain can be managed. The wound usually heals within 7-10 days. Vasoline can protect the wound while it heals from urine and feces.

And with a good, hard smack, you could ice the area afterward, and there wouldn't be any real wound to heal. Would that make it okay?

You're defining what's necessary and needless for other people. I for one would be perfectly capable of examining research and if presented with an option, determining whether a procedure is needless, on my own.

You may be capable of examining research, but I've actually examined it. Medically, it is needless.

What of those with religious and moral obligations to circumcise, do you not find it arrogant to make the determination that circumcision is "needless" in these situations?

It's no more arrogant than trying to decide a person's religion for him as an infant.

There are benefits to the freaking procedure. I have every right to embrace the fact that benefits exist. They do. I'm not ignorant to the risks. How have I in any way ignored the risks that are involved.

The rational basis for a decision here would be the net benefit - i.e. the benefits minus the risks - which in this case is none at all. When you appeal to the gross benefits as the basis for your decision, you're implicitly saying that the risks aren't playing a role in your decision-making process.

I've simply stated that male circumcision from what I've seen, hasn't matched the depiction of mutilation that it was suggested as being, in the OP.

I disagree. I think your comments and arguments have gone well beyond this single point.

 

[kai]

What specifically is unsettling to you?

the part i highlighted:

routine circumcision for infant boys.

why is it routine?

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

It boils down to personal choice. You're presented an option and you make an informed choice.

Except that the infant whose genitals are being operated on doesn't have that choice.

I'll just add my own anecdotal basis for this. My relatives are in Scotland, where boys aren't routinely circumcised. The only male relative I know who's circumcised developed diabetes in middle age and had to undergo the procedure because of an infection. I'm circumcised, but my wife and I chose not to get my son circumcised at birth. He's never had any problems.

-Nato