Consider the anti-immunization people. In that case, they are countering a “you must” argument with a “it’s your choice (but please choose no!)” argument, the opposite of the norm (“you must not” vs choice). In the face of overwhelming contradictory scientific evidence, no less.
You took one quote out of context and ignored the rest.
Yeah, great debating. :rolleyes:
The anti-immunization people I’ve known (and I don’t claim a representative sample) have been very strident about not immunizing your child and that the CDC and FDA are full of liars who are suppressing evidence of mercury poisoning and autism and all that in league with rich pharmaceutical cartels, etc. I don’t think I’ve ever come across one who said “Well, you could go either way just fine although I wouldn’t do it.”
Again though, YMMV.
Who’s choice is it? That parents or the child? The aim of the “anti-circumcision” movement is to give the person who’s actually going to use the penis the choice. Parents who circumcise their sons are denying them that choice. It’s a realitvely simple matter for a man who’s unhappy with his foreskin to get it removed. Not so much for a man who’s unhappy with his lack of a foreskin. Intead of routine procedure that any urologist can do he can choose between expensive skin grafts or years of stretching exercises. Neither of which can actually truly restore a foreskin; only create a facsimile. And he also needs to deal with people like people like wierdaaron who don’t know that they’re talking about and assume that circumcision can’t possibly be the “real issue” and he just must have “other issues” :rolleyes:.
It’s not ritual if you don’t do it for ritual reasons.
I think genital mutilation should be forbidden unless the person receiving it gives consent and is old enough to understand it. It’s against a child’s integrity to mark them for life due to some religious custom.
The article speaks not of “religious customs”, but of alleged health benefits.
Only Judaism and Islam, as far as I know, mandate circumcision as a religious ritual. The majority of Americans are circumcised, but the majority of Americans are neither Jewish nor Muslim. Thus, most are not doing it for religious reasons.
Isn’t it still a custom that has its roots in religious beliefs? Or was health reasons really what made people start doing it in the US? When? Customs can remain even though the religious element fades.
I am not an expert on the subject, but from some cursory reading the benefits seem to be either minimal or disputed, while there are also possible complications and disadvantages. To me it seems like an unnecessary operation.
As far as I know, Christians (and the vast majority of Americans were and are Christians) have never had circumcision as a religious ritual, since Biblical times.
I have no idea why it became prevelant in the first place - I’ve read that the health benefits were touted by some, and others thought it controlled masurbation (ha!) - but the modern argument “for” is that it allegedly has some health benefits which are greater than the risk of complications.
In short, it appears that physicians around the turn of the century got the notion that the procedure had health benefits, and as it turns out they weren’t wrong; though that seems at least in part to be purely by accident - AIDS of course didn’t exist back then.
Of course it is your right to view the procedure as unnecessary; a recommendation isn’t compulsory. I take the position that a parent is entitled to weigh the evidence and decide either way. I do not think waiting until the child is grown makes any sense, as natal circumcision is a very different thing than circumcision of an adult; the organ in question develops as the child grows.
Circumcision in adults lacks at least some of the health advantages of neonatal circumcision. For example, the reduced risk of penile cancer is a result only of neonatal circumcision and not delayed circumcision.
Maybe you think the changes in effectiveness between neonatal and adult circumcision aren’t worth it. But parents make medical decisions for their children constantly. The choice whether or not to circumcise is just one more medical decision they’ll make and they should have the full range of medical evidence to make it, not just the evidence a select group feels is “worth it”.
I’d like to ask if any 'Dopers here had their son circumcized and if they would be willing to discuss the experience (provided they saw it done). I have a real strong gut reaction to the idea of doing that to a baby, but I am willing to be de-ignoranced.
If anyone can answer:
Did it hurt? Did the baby cry? If so, how long did the baby cry?
Did the doctor apply any kind of anasthetic?
Did it bleed?
Were there any complications?
Do you regret having it done, or no?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks for explaining how it probably became so widely practiced in the US. Sorry for my mischaracterization, I had assumed it was strictly based in religion. There are probably still some ties to that though, as for why it became prevalent in the beginning.
I still hold my opinion though, sans the religious remark, for stated reasons.
So in other words, this paragraph is baseless:
By the way, I was in gym in high school four years ago, and trust me, nobody took off any more clothing than they had to for any longer than they had to. You don’t have naked boys looking at each others’ genitalia.
So did I, and I remember being teased for it. I only remember one time specifically, but I was a bit more circumspect about disrobing in front of other boys for quite a while in an attempt to circumvent future teasing.
I wouldn’t call it a major problem, and now that I’m an adult I’m glad that I still have my foreskin, but it did happen.
Heh, around here it is positively dangerous to discuss this stuff; some think a parent that circumcised their kid is a child-abusing monster. 
But I’ll risk the wrath.
-
He’s a newborn, and so it is impossible to say whether the anaesthetic which was provided worked or not. Compared with the other stuff he just went through - namely, being ripped from the womb via C-section - it wasn’t much. The kid cried when he was placed in the tray under the lights, but stopped as soon as he was taken out of the tray.
-
It bled, but only a very little. a piece of gauze covered the area for a few days.
-
No complications.
-
No regrets.
Thank you, Malthus. Sounds like it wasn’t too bad. Certainly not as bad as I would’ve imagined.
No, I don’t think parents who make that choice are monsters. Just like spanking…I don’t do it and don’t believe it’s a good thing, but I make no judgement against the 90% or so of American parents who have done it.
Now, those of you who buy your little girls Bratz dolls…:mad:
Just kiddin’.
My son just turned two and he is circumcised (as am I - although my father isn’t). My experience echoes Malthus’s.
I did not know about the female benefits to male circumcision, but now that I do, I’m extra glad we made the choice we did. We did it, not for religious reasons, but strictly for the health advantages for our son.
I do not understand why there is a push to cut boys.
Every time that the current reason why it is necessaryis proven wrong within a few months a new reason is found.
This has been going on for over 35 years that I know of. It has been probably going on longer.
Yes all three of my boys did object and did cry. I do not remember how long. They were tender for several days. We had to worry about infection and wipe their pienis when changing their diapers, and they did cry. Had grandson get infection that became a major problem.
The bleeding was minor.
Know the bunk that I was given, I would not have it done and tried to to talk my sons out it. But the doctors came up with a new reason. My daughter in law listen to a lot of the bunk out there.
An intact penis with the foreskin retracted looks basically the same as a circumcised one. If one is performing for an audience which prefers the circumcised look, one could simply leave it retracted.