Circumcisions

[DwayneEMTP]

Dwayne, would you prohibit a) all non-adult circumcisions, including religiously based ones? If not both a) and , why not? Thanks!

Man Michael, I'm not sure. As usual you've made a great point of course, but I will have to think on it before I can give it the response it deserves.

My thinking was not so much to champion the prohibition of the act, but to emasculate ( 8) ) the pseudoscience, superstition, mindless, vain, 'follow the leader' reasons that it seems to be done now.

On the face of it, and I'm likely going to make an ass out of myself by once again speaking before thinking, I wouldn't mind if parents had to show proof of religious necessity before the procedure was allowed to be performed. I'm not comfortable stepping on religion, especially when I need to use the governments boots to do so.

I believe there is room for mutilation is society. I wouldn't tell some societies they couldn't tattoo their children when to be tattooless could likely make them 'less' when they become adults. Would I do such a thing to Dylan? Yeah, I probably would if it would help him avoid almost certain hardship as an adult.

It's simply the "Jesus, it's JUST a baby!" mentality that is making me a little insane here..

I will try and wrap both brain cells around your question tonight and give a more reasonable, considered opinion tomorrow....

As always Michael, thanks for making me think.

Dwayne

[chbare]

Dwayne, you and I are looking at things the same way. It really is silly to lob off body parts because that is what we have always done IMHO. This argument lacks any evidence or logic and I understand you point. My counter points are simply providing evidence based arguments for the other side. However, I still suspect many people have their kids circumcised because a cut pepe is aesthetically pleasing.

Now, with Michael's question and your point regarding performing acts that relate to an entire society, should create some good discussion.

Take care,

chbare.

[DwayneEMTP]

Remove the breasts to prevent cancer, funny. This is in fact a potential option for women who have positive genetic markers. However, I will stay on topic.

I believe that is mostly on topic, though the removal option you mention is for adults. Can't you see the correlation between removing healthy breasts to avoid possible future illness and circumcision for the same reason? Why is one less valid than the other?

Here is my point, let's say I decide to circumcise my bouncing baby boy. I look at this article and decide based on this data. Does this change the argument? You are arguing people circumcise based on beliefs that have no realistic medical benefit? This; however, may provide a realistic medical benefit.

I'll have to take another look at the evidence. 1% chance of avoidance of disease and I say no, 50% and I may feel differently. I just can't say for sure without seeing their evidence. But certainly if parents were making their choice based on solid scientific evidence for the future well being of their children, for instance getting a cancer inoculation, then I would not be opposed...I just don't see that happening here.

I will keep my head down, you do the same. Things seem to he heating up a bit.

Take care,

chbare.

Will do buddy...thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Dwayne

[Mateo_1387]

chbare, if I may interject...

Although the studies show that circumcised men have higher risk to certain STD's, I can only see this as an expectation. I expect persons with their appendix removed to have no incidents of appendicitis. Circumcision may be an acceptable way to help fight against STD's, but there are more effective ways that do not cause mutilation to helpless children. Options include condoms and abstinence.

Circumcision for hygene/STD prevention is like using a sledgehammar to drive in a small nail.

Compare it to a vasectomy, there are less invasive ways to keep from having children. This procedure is not done to children because it is a decision to be made as an adult, the decision of how drastic a person want's to subject their body to modification. I do not see a difference in the comparison to circumcision.

[chbare]

Dwayne:

I do not see the connection. First, when we remove a woman's breasts we need to consider major psychological and physiological implications. Like it or not, the psychological aspects and implications associated with breast removal are far reaching. A circumcised male can lead a normal life, it is considered normal. A woman without breasts; however, would face multiple psychological and societal barriers. This is simply not the case with a circumcised male.

In addition, we also must consider major physiological implications. The loss of blood vessels and lymphatic pathways should not be ignored. In addition, post surgical risks are greater because of the larger size of the incision, tissue involved, and proximity to the thoracic cavity and associated structures. We also must take into consideration the loss of the ability to lactate. In addition, the breasts function as part of the endocrine system when we talk about oxytocin release and breast feeding status post birth.

Breast removal is a complex situation with far reaching psychsocial and physiological implications. I simply cannot compare the two procedures proposed.

Take care,

chbare.

[chbare]

chbare, if I may interject...

Although the studies show that circumcised men have higher risk to certain STD's, I can only see this as an expectation. I expect persons with their appendix removed to have no incidents of appendicitis. Circumcision may be an acceptable way to help fight against STD's, but there are more effective ways that do not cause mutilation to helpless children. Options include condoms and abstinence.

Circumcision for hygene/STD prevention is like using a sledgehammar to drive in a small nail.

Compare it to a vasectomy, there are less invasive ways to keep from having children. This procedure is not done to children because it is a decision to be made as an adult, the decision of how drastic a person want's to subject their body to modification. I do not see a difference in the comparison to circumcision.

Not arguing; however, are you going to tell a parent no who presents this as an argument? Here is some evidence not based on myth or religion.

Again, circumcision is not a valid comparison IMHO. You are taking an entire physiological function away from somebody with the said procedure. In addition, we must consider the broad psychosocial implications of a person status post vasectomy.

Take care,

chbare.

[Mateo_1387]

I do not see why it would be wrong to say no. I believe it to be too drastic of a measure to circumcise to help prevent STD's. There is still a great chance to contract an STD as being circumcised. Whether circumcised or not, there are always the uses of abstinence and condoms. Those are much less invasive, they have been proven to be very effective in pregnancy and STD prevention, and they do not require an operation to a helpless child who cannot fend for himself. I belive that as parents they should save the decision of circumcision for the child. Just as they would save the decision for a vasectomy.

The physiological uses of the foreskin are taken away during circumcision. Both procedure have psychosocial implications. I would like to hear what psychosocial implications affect a male post vasectomy. I assume issues such as not being able to have children would be one. Is it one? are there more? I am curious.

The psychosocial implications of circumcision are present too. We have harbored an environment where to have an intact penis is seen as ugly. Without conformity, the intact penis is seen as negative.

I think the comparison was far. They are opposite in nature as a male with a vasectomy has many psychosocial implications with a surgery, vs a male without a surgery (Circumcision) also has psychosocial implications.

Sure vasectomy may have a greater psychosocial implication, due to it not being routine, but my point I was trying to reach is that it is a decision left to the adult. Both procedures should not be taken lightly, but the sad fact is that many people take circumcision as a "light" procedure.

On a side note, I do not see this as an argument, but rather a very good discussion. My position needs to be questioned, just as I feel the oposing position needs to be questioned.

[reaper]

I do not see this as an argument for or against. There does not need to be scientific evidence to say you should or shouldn't. This is a parental decision and that's all it is. If the parents do not want to research it, before making their decision, that's their fault.

There is no evidence that foreskin or lack of, has any effect on anything. This can go back and forth forever, as people have different views. this is still a parental decision and that's all it is.

If people do it, because it's the "norm" then that's their rights. If they choose not to, then that's their rights.

If you have children, then you have made your decision. If you don't have children yet, then you get to make your decision, when the time comes.

If you do plan to have it done, then the best time to do it is when they are babies. They forget the pain quickly and will heal faster. I would not want to have it done as an adult, you would then have the memories of the event.

[Michael]

Are parents who have their son circumcised doing something wrong? Not that everyone thinks it's an important question.

[Richard B the EMT]

While not intended as fodder for jokes, one of my associates did get circumcised...at age 25! Most of us started talking around him in falsetto, and, admittedly, he was walking kind of funny for a couple of weeks. Worst part for him was, the woman he did it for broke up with him a year later.

He did marry someone else, and has a few now senior teen children by her. I keep sporadic contact with him, and his brother's families, too.