Should circumcision be the person's OWN choice?

[Notos]

Taken from dictionary.com:

verb (used with object), mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing.
1.
to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2.
to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

I fail to see how foreskin is a limb or essential part, and I, as Atrea does, feel that saying someone with a circumcision is "disfigured", or "imperfect" is a disgusting way to bend others to your opinion.

Umm, so how about definition 1? Injuring by removing a part sounds about right to me. Furthermore what can be considered essential is highly subjective, it's one of the reasons for all the arguing in this thread.

I was circumcised, and have absolutely no memory of the process, as I'm sure is the case for anyone who went through it as a baby, and I really would be amazed to hear that any of them were upset with their parents about "not having the choice".

There have been several posts in this very thread from people that are dissatisfied with having been circumcised.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Umm, so how about definition 1? Injuring by removing a part sounds about right to me. Furthermore what can be considered essential is highly subjective, it's one of the reasons for all the arguing in this thread.

Too loose a definition to be meaningful at all. Trimming your nails can be considered mutilation under that.

[Notos]

That's exactly what I'm saying at this point. We've already done this. Your point that the benefits aren't as large as other treatment options doesn't negate the net benefit. The AAP didn't say "there's some benefit" they said that the health benefits outweigh the potential complications. That means that from looking at the studies that have been done they find that circumcision is a net health benefit to most children. It doesn't matter if condoms do a better job or washing does a better job. Why can't you do both? Circumcision and washing? or Circumcision and condoms?

Because using surgery to solve a problem that can be solved by some soap and water, or some cream, or a condom is not justified. Is it common practice in the medical field to resort to amputation at the first sign of an injury? Cutting off an injured body part is a last resort in almost every conceivable scenario where the body part in question has the chance of being salvaged. Also, the foreskin is cut off at infancy to prevent conditions which have a low incidence rate to begin with. There are many parts of the body which can become infected, and as far as I know the penis isn't significantly more prone to infection than other parts of the body with exposed mucous membranes, so why is the penis singled out?

You keep saying that circumcision is not a reliable preventative measure for catching STDs as if this is some huge discovery. Nobody has argued that circumcision does this. Who are you continually arguing this point against? You keep repeating it and I can't figure out why. And yes, if everybody used condoms every time then a lot of the benefits of circumcision are negated, not all. So as long as you convince everyone for the rest of time to always use condoms forever every time they have sex then there's no need for circumcision. Too bad that will never happen. It's like outlawing radiation therapy for smokers because even though radiation therapy works sometimes, we just need to tell everyone not to smoke and they all will stop smoking.

You're comparing quitting smoking to using a condom? One entails a psychological and physiological dependence on nicotine and the other involves laziness (though in other cases cultural reasons). Oh but let's look at those HIV prevalence rates, which Gheld so conveniently linked for us on page 39.

INB4 AIDS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV



I.e. if you have unprotected sex with somebody who has HIV, you're an idiot. So getting a circumcision for that reason as opposed to condoms and proper education is a completely idiotic notion because statistically, you're guaranteed to get HIV eventually.

Better yet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...revalence_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gl...ntry_Level.png

Canada HIV Prevalence 00.30
30% (of non-Jewish non-Muslim males) circumcised

United States HIV Prevalence 00.60
75% (...) circumcised.

Kenya HIV prevalence 6.70
83% (...) circumcised.

Uganda HIV prevalence 5.40
14% (...) circumcised.

Notice a pattern? Only if you're schizophrenic.

Compare it to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...PP)_per_capita

and it becomes clear that HIV/AIDS is a socioeconomic issue and has dick fuck all to do with circumcision, and people selling it as some magic bullet against HIV are a bunch of soulless grifters. EDUCATION AND PREVENTION (through use of condoms) are the ABSOLUTE ONLY solution to HIV. On top of which, the study only shows significant reduction in transmission from female to male. It does not help for male to male and male to female.

If you try to use the HIV argument to promote circumcision, you are crossing a sacred barrier of ethics into an area known as the "IGNORANT LYING ASSHOLE" expanse.

How about that, circumcision is working out real well to stop the spread of HIV huh?

Too loose a definition to be meaningful at all. Trimming your nails can be considered mutilation under that.

Sorry, which part of "irreparably damaging" is too loose for you? Your nails GROW BACK iirc.

[Tribunal]

I'm a bit torn on this: I do think it should ideally be the person's choice, but I also think the far and away ideal time to do the surgery is closer to birth.

Yes there are botched circumcisions, but it's a much more complicated and involved surgery as an adult and still runs the risk of being botched, usually more so unless you pay out the nose for someone who is very familiar with doing the procedure on an adult. Also, recovery time/pain. NO I don't buy the BS argument that babies don't feel pain at all, but I do think it's slightly possible the pain is lesser due to various factors, and I do think there's something to be said for pain you don't remember vs pain you'll probably never completely forget.

So, while it's ideal to let the person grow up and then choose, I can't totally fault parents who choose either way out of ease or even concern. Plus, when do you let them pick? At seven? 13? 18? I could see a boy choosing to have the procedure at 13-18 out of peer pressure and then regretting it later.

Making the choice for the child isn't ideal, but neither is forcing them to live with the 'incorrect' (in terms of what the individual eventually wants) choice for years and endure the surgery as an adult. It's slightly better than the non-reversible option, but really, I can see cases where it wouldn't be that much better (you don't miss what you don't know, even if that is a somewhat cruel outlook).


Ultimately, if I ever have a son, it's something I will have to really think about. In the end I don't think I would have him circumcised if it was solely my decision, but I would feel really, really guilty if he expressed a desire to have it done later in life.

[Wells]

Ummmm circumcision is reparable generally.

[Annapolis]

Because using surgery to solve a problem that can be solved by some soap and water, or some cream, or a condom is not justified. Is it common practice in the medical field to resort to amputation at the first sign of an injury? Cutting off an injured body part is a last resort in almost every conceivable scenario where the body part in question has the chance of being salvaged. Also, the foreskin is cut off at infancy to prevent conditions which have a low incidence rate to begin with. There are many parts of the body which can become infected, and as far as I know the penis isn't significantly more prone to infection than other parts of the body with exposed mucous membranes, so why is the penis singled out?



You're comparing quitting smoking to using a condom? One entails a psychological and physiological dependence on nicotine and the other involves laziness (though in other cases cultural reasons). Oh but let's look at those HIV prevalence rates, which Gheld so conveniently linked for us on page 39.



How about that, circumcision is working out real well to stop the spread of HIV huh?



Sorry, which part of "irreparably damaging" is too loose for you? Your nails GROW BACK iirc.

The downsides of the surgery were taken into consideration. It is a very routine surgery done hundreds of times by general surgeons. Let me just post what the American Academy of Pediatrics wrote about circumcision and maybe that will work better for your understanding of this net benefit: "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 final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs."

I'm promising myself that I'm not going to explain this health benefit again. I've done it too many times in this thread already. I've tried to explain the studies, what net benefit means, what it helps with. I am not going to do it all again.

I have also already responded to the post you quoted about incidence rates, multiple times. I suppose your inference here is that circumcision is causing HIV rates to be higher in different countries or doing nothing to change them. Or we could assume that different countries have different rates of HIV incidence and prevalence. We could also see that the studies have shown that circumcision mitigates the levels of HIV incidence. Those incidence and prevalence rates are only important as they affect the PPV. They do not by themselves show how effective circumcision is on HIV prevention. I don't feel like this is news to anybody.

As for my metaphor with smoking. I could use anything else. Diabetes treatment. We could stop all treatment of diabetes type II and tell everyone to eat healthier. People won't all do that. Telling them to eat healthy is a great idea, and in fact we do that. But for those who don't always eat healthy, they should still be afforded medical procedures if need be. There are probably thousands of other examples where just because the best treatment is people being cognizant of their health doesn't mean we should withhold treatment.

[Eliot123]

Of course it should. It's basically cutting off a part of someones body, no matter how irrelevant.

[Voraliska]

I do not regret having my boys circumcised, and as a parent I saw it as my choice. As I worked in the medical field at the time and knew my childrens' pediatrician I made an informed decision and had it done. Neither one are suffering from it, neither has yet to have any type of urinary infections or infections in the area of their penis. I did not do it for religous purposes either. My husband is circumcised as well and supported the decision 100%. Sometimes parents make tough choices, and whatever the choice is, you live with it the rest of your life. It is each individuals concern, and not the worlds in my opinion.

(edited for some major grammer)

[Punchbag]

I currently have Phimosis, and have done as long as I can remember. Its where the foreskin of the penis doesn't retract, and is too tight around the head. Its so tight, its painful during sex (Not that i've had any for some time!) And there is also the risk of it ripping when during sex. I've tired many different creams or treatments, but nothing so far has worked.

I fear I may have to be circumcised, but at the age of 22 its a daunting prospect (Off work for 3-4 weeks in constant pain.)

[Daverid]

I don't really see the big deal about it ... I was circumcised as a baby for absolutely no reason at all (My parents are not Jewish) and it's not really affected my life in any way shape or form. I don't think it should ever be FORCED upon a society (Like a Third World Country being told they all MUST be circumcised because of some stupid reason like "It stops the spread of HIV/STD's etc) but I do still think the decision should always be made by the parents when the Child is born.

If the parents are Jewish or like mine just want to circumcise their child, then so be it. And if the child isn't circumcised and for some strange reason wants to deal with the pain of having it done as an Adult, then they can have it done.

Human Rights don't really apply to babies in the same sense that it does to adults (If you're trying to use this as an argument) ... Their parents are responsible for the Baby and anything that happens to them. A baby can't demand Breast Milk over Bottled and it goes against their Rights if you deny them Breast Milk ... It's a similar ordeal, the parents choose what is best for them and the baby doesn't really get a choice and doesn't really have rights in that sense. IF it was PROVEN that Circumcision had HORRIBLE effects on people when they were older, then you might consider making it something that HAS to be a choice of the person once they grow up. But since there really isn't any side effects it's basically a non-issue and a decision that should be left to the parents.

[Notos]

The downsides of the surgery were taken into consideration. It is a very routine surgery done hundreds of times by general surgeons. Let me just post what the American Academy of Pediatrics wrote about circumcision and maybe that will work better for your understanding of this net benefit: "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 final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs."

So they say the benefits aren't significant enough to recommend universal circumcision and that it should be the parents' choice, which effectively puts us back at square one, whether the individual or his parents should be the ones to make that choice.

I'm promising myself that I'm not going to explain this health benefit again. I've done it too many times in this thread already. I've tried to explain the studies, what net benefit means, what it helps with. I am not going to do it all again.

I have also already responded to the post you quoted about incidence rates, multiple times. I suppose your inference here is that circumcision is causing HIV rates to be higher in different countries or doing nothing to change them. Or we could assume that different countries have different rates of HIV incidence and prevalence. We could also see that the studies have shown that circumcision mitigates the levels of HIV incidence. Those incidence and prevalence rates are only important as they affect the PPV. They do not by themselves show how effective circumcision is on HIV prevention. I don't feel like this is news to anybody.

The point that poster makes and what I want to emphasize is that the spread of HIV is a socioeconomic issue, and that given the possible alternatives, circumcision is the least effective solution available, while also being the most radical. Regardless, I am not against adult circumcision, since the decision is made by the individual and not his parents.

As for my metaphor with smoking. I could use anything else. Diabetes treatment. We could stop all treatment of diabetes type II and tell everyone to eat healthier. People won't all do that. Telling them to eat healthy is a great idea, and in fact we do that. But for those who don't always eat healthy, they should still be afforded medical procedures if need be. There are probably thousands of other examples where just because the best treatment is people being cognizant of their health doesn't mean we should withhold treatment.

Diabetes treatment is curative, not preventative, so again the comparison is awful, but let's say someone doesn't have diabetes. Telling someone to eat healthy/live an active lifestyle in that case is the same as educating them on safe sex and the risk of STDs. Both are effective preventative measures for their respective conditions. Circumcising someone is like telling someone to eat vegetables on the weekends and then pig out the rest of the week. It's an incomplete measure and will only delay the inevitable.

I currently have Phimosis, and have done as long as I can remember. Its where the foreskin of the penis doesn't retract, and is too tight around the head. Its so tight, its painful during sex (Not that i've had any for some time!) And there is also the risk of it ripping when during sex. I've tired many different creams or treatments, but nothing so far has worked.

I fear I may have to be circumcised, but at the age of 22 its a daunting prospect (Off work for 3-4 weeks in constant pain.)

It sounds like circumcision is the only choice there, if all else has failed. Have you looked into preputioplasty? That's a surgical alternative if you don't really want to lose your foreskin. From wikipedia:

Preputioplasty is a treatment for phimosis in the alternative to circumcision and radical dorsal slit.

It is conservative, non-traumatic and less invasive and can be performed on an outpatient basis under local anaesthetic in a doctor's office and
It has the advantage of healing very quickly with little or no significant cosmetic alteration to the appearance of the penis.

[s_bushido]

Taken from dictionary.com:

verb (used with object), mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing.
1.
to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2.
to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

I fail to see how foreskin is a limb or essential part, and I, as Atrea does, feel that saying someone with a circumcision is "disfigured", or "imperfect" is a disgusting way to bend others to your opinion.

I was circumcised, and have absolutely no memory of the process, as I'm sure is the case for anyone who went through it as a baby, and I really would be amazed to hear that any of them were upset with their parents about "not having the choice".

They use the word for its emotional impact. To make it seem like some horrible disfigurement or act of cruelty.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Sorry, which part of "irreparably damaging" is too loose for you? Your nails GROW BACK iirc.

You'll never get those nails back, though. Also, I believe they do have some sort of reconstruction surgery for the foreskin.

Overall the point is that the connotation with the word mutilation is not appropriate for what is happening.

[Laize]

Ummmm circumcision is reparable generally.

You can grow new skin, but not the nerve endings.

And the process is extremely long, drawn out and not what you would call "comfortable".

[Themius]

Many people forget that in poorer countries it is a lot more beneficial to be circumcised than not due to obvious hygienic reasons. Parents choice definitely wins here.

Poorer countries may not have stellar medical staff which can lead to infections of the penis, possible amputation of the penis or an infection that can kill the child.

[Notos]

You'll never get those nails back, though. Also, I believe they do have some sort of reconstruction surgery for the foreskin.

Overall the point is that the connotation with the word mutilation is not appropriate for what is happening.

There is indeed surgery but it is strictly cosmetic at this point. Maybe someday though. As for the word mutilation, that's an issue of connotative versus denotative meaning. People associate the word with very severe injuries because that is the context that they are used to in everyday life, but the dictionary meaning covers circumcision as well, so people are not strictly wrong in calling it mutilation.

[Puck]

I do not regret having my boys circumcised, and as a parent I saw it as my choice. As I worked in the medical field at the time and knew my childrens' pediatrician I made an informed decision and had it done. Neither one are suffering from it, neither has yet to have any type of urinary infections or infections in the area of their penis. I did not do it for religous purposes either. My husband is circumcised as well and supported the decision 100%. Sometimes parents make tough choices, and whatever the choice is, you live with it the rest of your life. It is each individuals concern, and not the worlds in my opinion.

(edited for some major grammer)

I'm uncut and I have never had an infection. Sounds like you wasted money.

[s_bushido]

There is indeed surgery but it is strictly cosmetic at this point. Maybe someday though. As for the word mutilation, that's an issue of connotative versus denotative meaning. People associate the word with very severe injuries because that is the context that they are used to in everyday life, but the dictionary meaning covers circumcision as well, so people are not strictly wrong in calling it mutilation.

People aren't using it for its dictionary definition. They're using it for the "*gasp!* mutilation!!! what can I do to stop this travesty?!!" effect.

[Voraliska]

I'm uncut and I have never had an infection. Sounds like you wasted money.

As i stated before it is a choice, I had/have the money, and I would do it all over again. I am not saying that if you are not circumcised that you will get infections, I am saying that my kids and husband have never suffered setbacks from it. A choice, nothing more nothing less.

[Puck]

As i stated before it is a choice, I had/have the money, and I would do it all over again. I am not saying that if you are not circumcised that you will get infections, I am saying that my kids and husband have never suffered setbacks from it. A choice, nothing more nothing less.

What will you say if they're upset about your decision later on?