The Circumcision Discussion

[jmspeach]

I know this can be a HUGE debate, and I'm not looking to start any arguments. I was just wondering as you are OB nurses. I'm expecting a boy in July and not sure if we should circ. or not. My husband says yes, it's better medically in the long run. My gpa who just turned 70 had to have a circ. due to endless complications lately.

As nurses in this area, is the medication that they use good? And what are some questions to ask my Dr. about it. I already know that my hospital i'll be at uses a med. when they perform it, I"m just wondering what you all think.

Thanks

Jen :)

[Joe12]

lol, you need 15 posts.....the thought is it cuts down on the "hit and run" sorts...

now address the correction! please? and then you will only need one more post, lol

I think I did address the correction. I believe the second part the post still applies but I guess I should say I am asking more generally, why do fathers insist that their sons match them in this area. To the original poster, sorry for the misread.

[GooeyRN, ADN, BSN, CNA, LPN, RN]

I think I did address the correction. I believe the second part the post still applies but I guess I should say I am asking more generally, why do fathers insist that their sons match them in this area. To the original poster, sorry for the misread.

I have always wondered that, too. I doubt many boys and fathers compare memberes.

[consult2]

Does the "looking like Daddy" excuse justify damaging a baby boy's member?...

I would like to see some rational justification for this..

By justification, I mean proof that the "benefits a child receives outweighs the damage and pain done.

So the questions remain, what benefit does an infant receive by being sexually damaged to look like Daddy? IF there is no benefit to the child, just WHO does benefit? and how?

And the second question is: WHY is this so important? It didn't seem to be important when circumcision started since back then NO circumcised child looked like his intact Daddy.

I am confused about something though.... Since until the child reaches sexual maturity the only way they will be similar is in having a scarred member, why must he be circumcised as an infant?

Perhaps it is that it WILL BECOME important when the child reaches sexual maturity?

If so, then do parents throw a "Tally-wacker look-alike comparison party" for relatives and close friends?

Imagine the party comments:

Aunt Penny: Oh, look they have the same dull gray color.

BIL George: I see that they both have a ragged scar and the same skin tags--and even in the same place.

Jamie: I love how they both have those cute skin bridges. You must be so proud.

Mother: Oh, we are, but we were hoping he would also have his bow to the left. Oh, well, you can't have everything.

SIL Becky: I know what you mean. It really is too bad they couldn't do anything about the testicles--thay don't look anything alike.

Mother: I hear you. We were so afraid he would need psychiatric counseling about them, but he came through it like a real trooper. I think dyeing the pubic hair was a good idea, it made the differences less obvious.

When you have his party, be sure you don't invite anyone intact, they might throw a damper on the party by asking if they both have the same degree of sensitivity loss..but you probably will know who it is safe to invite because, being close friends and family you will have been to their party.

[brillohead, ADN, RN]

My husband (39yo) is cut. My MIL's doctor was Jewish, and MIL pretty much didn't have a choice -- it was done as a matter of fact, kind of like clamping and cutting the umbilical cord. Do the doctors ask permission from the mother to cut the umbilical cord, or do they just do it because it's "part of the procedure"? You get my point... my husband's circumcision is just the way they did things back then.

Ten years ago, when I became pregnant with my son, I was suddenly exposed to something that, as a woman, I had honestly not given any thought to whatsoever. In my pre-married days, I had seen both cut and uncut versions, and both operated the same way, so I didn't give it any thought until I found out I was going to have a baby boy.

While not a regular church-goer, I do believe in God, and after anatomy and physiology class, I believe that God is remarkably intelligent to be able to put all these different parts and pieces together to create a functioning human being. So my thought process went like this:

1. God is awesome and all-knowing and just freaking cool!

2. God created humans.

3. God is not dumb or careless (see thought #1 for confirmation).

4. God put a foreskin on the normal human member.

5. God is not dumb or careless (see thought #1 for confirmation).

6. Since God is not dumb, and since God created humans, and since God put a foreskin on the human member, one can assume that God WANTED the human member to have a foreskin -- he doesn't make "stupid silly mistakes"(see thought #1 for confirmation).

7. If an all-knowing Creator thinks that my male child should have a foreskin on his member, who the heck am I to think that I should be cutting it off like a piece of gristle on a steak?

God is awesome and all-knowing and just freaking cool.... I am a mere human to whom He has entrusted the care of this miracle of a baby boy. If God wants my son's member to have a foreskin, then I sure as heck am not going to have it removed!

If my son had been born with a tumor or extra nose or something, I think God would understand if I have it surgically removed -- that would not be part of a "normal human body" and there is a very real benefit to having it removed. But circumcising a healthy, normal baby boy's member for the sake of some "possible potential future benefit" is going above and beyond the call of sanity.

If we're going to justify male circumcision, then we need to start removing the appendix of every single person in the world who hasn't yet had an appendectomy, because there will be a "possible potential future benefit" for each of them, since they will no longer be subject to appendicitis. Seriously, think about it.

Oh, and as for my husband and son? When I asked my husband about this 10 years ago, he was perfectly fine with leaving our son intact. My son is now 9yo and has always been perfectly healthy. When he was told about circumcision and that we had chosen to not do that to his body, his eyes got big and he said, "THANK YOU!"

He doesn't care that a tiny bit of his skin doesn't look identical to a tiny bit of his daddy's skin. Daddy's got dark brown hair, hazel eyes, and a complexion that tans, and our son has blond hair, beautiful blue eyes, and a smattering of freckles across his nose. What the heck does all that have to do with parent/child love and bonding???

[Joe12]

I thought I'd provide some interesting links to this story. One thing I found personally interesting about all these stories was how the stories were spun in the US. While the BBC did print the glowing press release they also have half the article give the opinion some UK health officials:

"Dr Colm O'Mahony, a sexual health expert from the Countess of Chester Foundation Trust Hospital in Chester, said the US had an "obsession" with circumcision being the answer to controlling sexually transmitted infections."

And from the Guardian, they are also very 'guarded':

"But the benefit of being circumcised was small. After two years, 114 circumcised men and teenagers tested positive for herpes simplex virus type 2, which means they had about an 8 percent chance of becoming infected over the course of the study. Of the uncircumcised group, 153 tested positive for this virus, which gave them around a 10 percent chance of becoming infected over two years. "

And

" ... if you want to avoid sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision almost certainly won't be your first or best option."

Now compare that to the popular US press and the experts that were quoted and you'd think we'd cured cancer. I just find those two perspectives really courious. I mean, not in one US publication did the word Gardisal come up, but it did in the BBC/UK article. Not once in the US publications did the HIV prevalence come up but it did in the BBC/UK version. And on and on like this. If it wasn't such a serious problem it would actually be quite funny.

The question then is why are we discussing circumcision with respect to HPV when we've had a vaccine for nearly four years now which is about to get approved for boys? When even given a 50% decrease in suseptability to HIV most men in the US would only see an improvement on their odds on the order of hundredths of a percent, probably thousandths (do I need to put the number back up?) Though I haven't thought about the numbers fully for HSV, the difference was only about 2% (about 8% vs 10%) which is 25% relative plus the fact that other publications on first world populations haven't shown such a dramatic effect.

Such a conclusion doesn't require any special insightfulness. Therefore, it is hard to avoid the obvious fact that Americans, as the BBC article notes, are obsessed with circumcision as the cure-all.

[lamazeteacher]

"If an all-knowing Creator thinks that my male child should have a foreskin on his member, who the heck am I to think that I should be cutting it off like a piece of gristle on a steak? " Quote from brillohead's post

When humans first appeared on this earth, they wore no clothing. It seems that one's vital parts (for procreation) must have suffered some trauma (maybe it was just cold) so Adam or Eve designed the first cod piece from a fig leaf.

The foreskin protected the earliest human male's glans (which would have been exquisitely painful if injured). Jews were renowned tailors in times of old, and once they provided their species with clothing, they might have seen no further need for a protective foreskin. When they got sweaty in times of exertion or heat, without "running water" in their homes, they didn't bathe often (although they were supposed to do that for the Sabbath). The resulting excretions and possibly crotch rot (monilia infection), may have resulted in a decree to get rid of that extra flesh that didn't allow air to circulate there.

So that's my bedtime story for y'all, digest it and try to make peace with the practise that others have continued, without everyone having the same opinion or be labelled male child abusers. You know what they say about "sauce for the gander"......

[consult2]

"When humans first appeared on this earth, they wore no clothing. It seems that one's vital parts (for procreation) must have suffered some trauma (maybe it was just cold) so Adam or Eve designed the first cod piece from a fig leaf."

Rebuttal by assumption? I like the other fairy tale better.

[consult2]

"The foreskin protected the earliest human male's glans (which would have been exquisitely painful if injured). Jews were renowned tailors in times of old, and once they provided their species with clothing, they might have seen no further need for a protective foreskin. When they got sweaty in times of exertion or heat, without "running water" in their homes, they didn't bathe often (although they were supposed to do that for the Sabbath). The resulting excretions and possibly crotch rot (monilia infection), may have resulted in a decree to get rid of that extra flesh that didn't allow air to circulate there."

Even bedtime stories have to make some common sense..and everything here is counter to reality--hardly an amusing fantasy. But thanks for the ATTEMPT for humor.

[Purple_Scrubs, BSN, RN]

To brillohead:

:yeahthat:

[vashtee, RN]

God is awesome and all-knowing and just freaking cool.... I am a mere human to whom He has entrusted the care of this miracle of a baby boy. If God wants my son's member to have a foreskin, then I sure as heck am not going to have it removed!

Actually, according to bible stories, God set out to kill Moses for not circumcising his son. Moses' wife Sephora saved Moses by taking up a sharp stone and immediately cutting off her son's foreskin. The story appears somewhere in Exodus, chapter 4.

[consult2]

"Actually, according to bible stories, God set out to kill Moses for not circumcising his son. Moses' wife Sephora saved Moses by taking up a sharp stone and immediately cutting off her son's foreskin. The story appears somewhere in Exodus, chapter 4."

But the problem is that Fairy tale about circumcision was simply an invention of the priests circa 55BCE, so there is no validity to attributing circumcision to the Jewish god.

http://home.comcast.net/~consult2/index.html

http://home.comcast.net/~consult2/god.html

http://home.comcast.net/~consult2/enigma.html

http://home.comcast.net/~consult2/fanatics.html

[vashtee, RN]

"Actually, according to bible stories, God set out to kill Moses for not circumcising his son. Moses' wife Sephora saved Moses by taking up a sharp stone and immediately cutting off her son's foreskin. The story appears somewhere in Exodus, chapter 4."

But the problem is that Fairy tale about circumcision was simply an invention of the priests circa 55BCE, so there is no validity to attributing circumcision to the Jewish god.

http://home.comcast.net/~consult2/index.html

http://home.comcast.net/~consult2/god.html

http://home.comcast.net/~consult2/enigma.html

http://home.comcast.net/~consult2/fanatics.html

I'm not sure what exactly you were intending to have me read (can you narrow down your links?), but I can tell you that the book of Exodus is believed to have been completed around 450 BCE, or about 400 years before you claim the priests invented circumcision...... not that this is relevant to whether or not one believes the bible represents historical fact...

I also want to object to the idea that Jewish physicians would circumcise a non-Jewish child without permission (unless it was hospital policy back in the day). According to Jewish law, it is not religiously mandated that non-Jews to circumcise their children.