Circumcision these days?

[urbanrealtor]

My 2 bits:
We didn’t have our boys cut.
When asking my father (a pediatrician and neurologist) about it, he stated that he was unaware of medical benefits, that there are known risks, and that he and my mother had decided out of aesthetic concerns (which is pretty common).

I personally don’t think the aesthetics are that important. If I had been aware of any benefits I might have thought differently.
I am aware of non-conclusive evidence of medical benefits now.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/08/22/peds.2012-1989
Again, non-conclusive and I am not sure about what decisions I would have made with this evidence in hand.

[earlyretirement]

Who would have thought the subject of circumcision would be so popular these days.

I was reading my Wall Street Journal yesterday and there was a piece on it. That article was written by someone that was for it.

He was trying to paint a picture that the healthcare costs are going to rise dramatically in the future because less and less people are getting it.

I don’t buy that argument at all.

As to the healthcare benefits….I don’t honestly know which side is right…it sounds like they are still debating on that one.

But my personal feeling is the possible benefits are so small it wouldn’t be worth it at all.

I think it’s GREAT that the # of procedures done in the USA has fallen so drastically. That’s a clear sign that parents are waking up.

And honestly, if a girl didn’t want to be with some guy because he was/wasn’t circumcised, I certainly wouldn’t want them with my kid. I doubt the vast majority of the guys out there will have ANY issues with girls.

[Fearful]

[quote=earlyretirement]And honestly, if a girl didn’t want to be with some guy because he was/wasn’t circumcised, I certainly wouldn’t want them with my kid. I doubt the vast majority of the guys out there will have ANY issues with girls.[/quote]
I’d like to point out that even this hypothetical argument ignores the fundamental ethical question. Should parents irreversibly alter their baby’s body because they think he will be more sexually attractive two decades later? If that is a valid argument, then there is absolutely a valid argument for female circumcision.

When the boy reaches adulthood, he can have whatever he wants cut off. If an African woman wants her labia removed, fine. But neither should have it done to them when they are babies and cannot consent to the procedure.

[Rhett]

I’m curious what the statistics would be if they remove everybody’s appendix at the age of 1 month? Sure, there are risks due to surgery, but would the outweigh the risk of appendicitis that wasn’t caught soon enough? I dunno.

I’d probably have opted against doing it if I had a boy. My brother, who still lives in our “home country” and is a bit more conservative in these issues, had both of his boys circumcised because he was very concerned about the “I don’t look like Daddy” issue. Sad thing is, they botched boy #2’s circumcision, and though it wasn’t a life changer he probably looks about as much different as he would have with a foreskin. I’m too classy to have said to my brother “well, that’s why I would have been against it”.

Oh, and the original topic of this thread? What a crock of $#!t. Our health care costs are far more effected by people choosing to eat at fast food restaurants, often turning their kids into fat chunks like me by age 12. Let’s get some perspective here…

[scaredyclassic]

how many adults would go get a circumcision?

I would say close to zero.

if you wouldnt do it yourself, dont do it to your kid…

[CA renter]

[quote=squat250]how many adults would go get a circumcision?

I would say close to zero.

if you wouldnt do it yourself, dont do it to your kid…[/quote]

Though I mentioned my personal opposition to circumcision above, there is another story to tell. My father had to get a circumcision when he was around 45-50-ish years old. He’s old-school, so didn’t say anything at all to anyone about it, but from what I could get from my mom, it was due to some kind of infection or medical problem (???).

Anyway, IIRC, it required a hospital stay and when he got home, we didn’t see him for days as he stayed in his room (probably on a lot of pain meds), which was very unlike him because he was pretty damn tough when it came to medical stuff.

Pretty sure he wasn’t happy about the fact that he wasn’t circumcised as a baby. He’d probably suggest to everyone that they should have their boys circumcised as infants.

Just had to offer another perspective.

[Fearful]

[quote=CA renter]
Pretty sure he wasn’t happy about the fact that he wasn’t circumcised as a baby. He’d probably suggest to everyone that they should have their boys circumcised as infants.

Just had to offer another perspective.[/quote]
Understood. Some adult men wish they had been circumcised as babies. That is unfortunate but does not offset the ones who had been cut and wish they hadn’t. You would have to have all adult men wishing they had been cut as babies for that argument to hold. After all, in medicine, “first, do no harm”.

There is really no good analogy. The appendix does no one any good; you find no one glad they still have theirs.

If we ritually cut some portion of female genitals, almost regardless of the health benefits of doing so, the feminists would have rightly put a stop to it long ago.

Here is a rough contra analogy: Women who suffer radical mastectomies can get insurance to pay for their reconstructive breast surgeries. They have a right to an intact body, even though at that point the breast is completely cosmetic, and the surgery is dangerous, relative to leaving the chest alone. Similarly, insurance will pay for certain vaginoplasties, even though such vaginas will be used entirely for psychological benefit. Why aren’t we similarly respecting male rights to having intact bodies?

[scaredyclassic]

It is required by Jewish law. It does seem strange to me that it caught on so widely. Is it the case that in olden times no one was circumcised except the people of my tribe? It was probably a lot cooler as a group identity mark then. Much more radical than say a tattoo.

[scaredyclassic]

http://Www.historyofcircumcision.net

Many questions answered.

[CA renter]

[quote=Fearful][quote=CA renter]
Pretty sure he wasn’t happy about the fact that he wasn’t circumcised as a baby. He’d probably suggest to everyone that they should have their boys circumcised as infants.

Just had to offer another perspective.[/quote]
Understood. Some adult men wish they had been circumcised as babies. That is unfortunate but does not offset the ones who had been cut and wish they hadn’t. You would have to have all adult men wishing they had been cut as babies for that argument to hold. After all, in medicine, “first, do no harm”.

There is really no good analogy. The appendix does no one any good; you find no one glad they still have theirs.

If we ritually cut some portion of female genitals, almost regardless of the health benefits of doing so, the feminists would have rightly put a stop to it long ago.

Here is a rough contra analogy: Women who suffer radical mastectomies can get insurance to pay for their reconstructive breast surgeries. They have a right to an intact body, even though at that point the breast is completely cosmetic, and the surgery is dangerous, relative to leaving the chest alone. Similarly, insurance will pay for certain vaginoplasties, even though such vaginas will be used entirely for psychological benefit. Why aren’t we similarly respecting male rights to having intact bodies?[/quote]

We’re not in disagreement at all (see my previous post on this thread). Just wanted to note that some adult men do have to be cicumcised, and that it’s (supposedly) an even more painful and traumatic surgery at a later age.

[Fearful]

[quote=CA renter]We’re not in disagreement at all (see my previous post on this thread). Just wanted to note that some adult men do have to be circumcised, and that it’s (supposedly) an even more painful and traumatic surgery at a later age.[/quote]
Understood, no need to qualify the statements. At a later age most surgeries become more difficult, certainly much more so in late adulthood. I think the penis develops through puberty, so maybe there is an argument for doing it before puberty. But immediately after birth? That’s just weird!

It’s as though we are trying to make the baby boy as God intended him, and it must be done as soon as possible. Jewish people believe this.

Or we feel it ought to be done for moral purity, and it’s much easier to talk dazed parents into it the first day after birth than if they get the kid home and get used to him intact.

The surgery could become utterly ridiculous if attempted in adulthood, and that still wouldn’t justify doing it to unconsenting babies. That might justify doing a careful analysis of the penis at, say, one year old to determine if he is a candidate for the issues that would necessitate later circumcision.

Most women would be happier wearing pointy shoes if their little toes were gone. Few would attempt the surgery as an adult, but none would suggest that little toes should be routinely amputated from baby girls.

[scaredyclassic]

women;s shoes are very very bad.

[CA renter]

[quote=squat250]women;s shoes are very very bad.[/quote]

Very true.

[all]

[quote=Fearful] The appendix does no one any good; you find no one glad they still have theirs.
[/quote]

Appendix supposedly works as a safe house for good bacteria when your organism is overran by bad bacteria.

[scaredyclassic]

my vasectomy was pretty scary.

[Author]

Posts