[mothernurture]

Originally Posted by twinzplus3

I stand by my original statement. . .they are done for very different reasons and have been historically different. I appreciate your website as it was informative. But I do not think it is fair to tell parents who have had their sons circumcised that they've mutilated their child.

I don't believe *I* used the term mutilation. I agree that it's a harsh term and tends to put parents who love their sons and did what they believed was right on the defensive. At the same time, when something is culturally normal to us it's hard to see it objectively. Where FGM is practiced, parents don't do it out of ill-will toward their daughters, for the most part they do it because they believe it to be cleaner and more attractive, and they believe it's necessary in order for her to get married some day; ie, no man will have her if she's not cut. Many of the exact same justifications exist for male circumcision in America.

As far as the term, "mutlilation", circumcision of males and females definitely qualified if you ascribe any value to the body parts in question. I believe that the foreskin is functional, and an essential component to normal sex. Circumcision alters the penls by excising the foreskin. I believe that healthy babies are born perfect. I consider circumcision damaging---it removes 1/3-1/2 of the skin on the penls, including what would in an adult be 2-3 feet of blood vessels, 240 feet of nerves, tens of thousands of specialized nerve endings, and unique structures like the frenulum and ridged band. What's LOST Once the foreskin's gone, it's gone forever so for the most part the damage done is irreversible/irreparable. If you consider these beliefs and then click on the link above that shows the definition of mutilation, you'll see why many people believe it does apply to routine infant (male) dircumcision

As far as how God intended. . .I imagine there are numerous things that we don't do as God intended for us to do; it's unfar to pick just one issue and claim 'godliness.' However, I certainly respect everyone's opinions on this issue.

Certainly, but we're talking about a body part as standard and normal and healthy as the labia, clitoral hood, toes, nipples, earlobes, etc.

The entire AAP statement by the way, does note that there are links between lower risk of STD's, UTI's and penile cancer. The policy wasn't even changed until 1989 (before which they recommended routine circumcision). Although they are now saying that the medicial risks of being uncirucmcised are not statistically significant comparitively.

I might be confused, but I don't think they ever recommended it. The history of the AAP policy statements is available here. The STD stuff is very conflicting, and we now now that penile cancer and cervical cancer are caused by the virus HPV. With regard to UTIs, proponents of male circumcision often say that intact boys have 10x the risk but it's rarely put in perspective: The risk for an intact boy is only 1%. With regard to penile cancer, the American Cancer Society says:

In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This suggestion was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. However, most researchers now believe those studies were flawed because they failed to consider other factors that are now known to affect penile cancer risk.

For example, some recent studies suggest that circumcised men tend to have certain other lifestyle factors associated with lower penile cancer risk: they are less likely to have many sexual partners, less likely to smoke, and more likely to have better personal hygiene habits. Most public health researchers believe that the penile cancer risk among uncircumcised men without known risk factors living in the United States is extremely low. The current consensus of most experts is that circumcision should not be recommended as a prevention strategy for penile cancer.

I actually really like how the Canadian Paediatric Society's information for parents compares the risks...

Of every 1,000 boys who are circumcised:

• 20 to 30 will have a surgical complication, such as too much bleeding or infection in the area.
  
• 2 to 3 will have a more serious complication that needs more treatment. Examples include having too much skin removed or more serious bleeding.
  
• 2 will be admitted to hospital for a urinary tract infection (UTI) before they are one year old.
  
• About 10 babies may need to have the circumcision done again because of a poor result.

In rare cases, pain relief methods and medicines can cause side effects and complications. You should talk to your baby’s doctor about the possible risks.

Of every 1,000 boys who are not circumcised:

• 7 will be admitted to hospital for a UTI before they are one year old.
  
• 10 will have a circumcision later in life for medical reasons, such as a condition called phimosis. Phimosis is when the opening of the foreskin is scarred and narrow because of infections in the area that keep coming back. Older children who are circumcised may need a general anesthetic, and may have more complications than newborns.

Circumcision slightly lowers the risk of developing cancer of the penls in later life. However, this form of cancer is very rare. One of every one million men who are circumcised will develop cancer of the penls each year. By comparison, 3 of every one million men who are not circumcised will develop penile cancer each year.

http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/babies/Circumcision.htm

Jen

[Jocelynbell]

Originally Posted by jadis

My fiance is an RN, and have seen what an infection can do. At the moment he works in the ICU where the average patient is quite old, and may not have necessarily taken adequate care of themselves (due to forgetfulness, illness, etc.). It's rare, but when it does happen it's really painful- when he worked in peds he has also seen it happen to younger boys, and IMO it's probably less traumatic to do it as a baby when they don't remember as opposed to getting a painful infection and needing to get it done. That really is what is informing his opinion.

Funny you should say that! My dear old dad told me horror stories about young men in WW2 who had serious problems when they weren't cleaning themselves properly either because of lack of nursing or water in the field. They had to have circs done at a later age.
Well, I am not passionate about this subject at all. When our three boys were "done" 11 and 15 yrs ago, it was just starting to become an issue. I think today I would hesitate as it isn't necessary but I had my dad's voice in the back of my head. Oh, by the way Dad WAS NOT circ'd. They were in England and he was from a poorer family and born at home. No doctors were called in at all.
Funny world eh?

[mothernurture]

Originally Posted by Jocelynbell

...horror stories about young men in WW2 who had serious problems when they weren't cleaning themselves properly either because of lack of nursing or water in the field. They had to have circs done at a later age.

There's some interesting info about the History of Circumcision here that talks about WWI & WWII. It sounds like it was mostly an issue of myth/misinformation surrounding venereal diseases that initially lead to the rise, rather than lack of water or medical care.

Jen

[pattiewrites]

Originally Posted by twinzplus3

But I do not think it is fair to tell parents who have had their sons circumcised that they've mutilated their child. As far as how God intended. . .I imagine there are numerous things that we don't do as God intended for us to do; it's unfar to pick just one issue and claim 'godliness.' However, I certainly respect everyone's opinions on this issue.

This is interesting. In my reading when I was pregnant last time, I came across some information about my church. (Catholic). Throughout church history, popes have been advocating against circ. Actually, it goes right back to St. Peter, who said not to circ babies. One later pope actully wrote an encyclical forbidding the practice, and this was in the Dark Ages. (can't remember which one off the top of my head). Several after that have reiterated the statement. But, it isn't enforced and hasn't been for hundreds of years. I actually read that this is part of the reason circ didn't catch on in many European and South American countries as it did here in the US.

If anyone is interested in more info, type in "the catholic church and circumcision" into google and thousands of pages will come up.

[twinzplus3]

Didn't Peter say that circumcision was a Jewish rite and it wasn't necessary for gentiles to be circumcised in order to belong to God and be a part of the fellowship? I am going to look that up Pattie. . .that is interesting.

[pattiewrites]

Here's a link with Biblical references: http://www.cirp.org/pages/cultural/glass2/

http://www.catholicsagainstcircumcision.org/

[twinzplus3]

Thanks Pattie. . .I liked the link with Scriptural references.

[Nitwit]

whoa... is all I can say... WHOA lol

[LeanyBean]

There is a lot of information that can be found through all the links you ladies have posted. Thank you all for sharing!

Even though I have read many things on both sides of this debate, I believe it is only up to every parent whether or not they circumcise their sons. I have chosen to circumcise my sons. Their father is circumcised and I wish them to be alike. If their father wasn't circumcised I wouldn't have circumcised them, either. All just a personal preference thing.

[mothernurture]

I agree that elective genital cutting/alteration is a very personal, private, intimate thing. The problem I have with the personal preference or personal choice argument is that the person undergoing the permanent procedure on the most intimate part of his body who has to live with the choice and will one day be using that organ sexually has absolutely no say in the matter. IMO, circumcision is only a personal preference or choice if the person undergoing it is a fully informed, consenting adult.

Altering Baby Boys' Bodies
The Ethics of Infant Male Circumcision
The Ethical Canary: Science, Society, and the Human Spirit*
Margaret A. Somerville
Margaret Somerville is the founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University, where she holds the Samuel Gale Chair in the Faculty of Law and is a professor in the Faculty of Medicine. As a consultant to numerous government and non-governmental bodies, she has worked with the World Health Organization, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and UNESCO. She Has received a number of honorary doctorates in law and is the recipient of many awards, including the Order of Australia. She lives in Montreal.

Ending Circumcision:
Where Sex and Violence First Meet, by Jeannine Parvati Baker, M.A.
Jeannine Parvati Baker completed the Master's program in psychology at Sonoma State University and founded Hygieia College, devoted to healing Earth by healing birth. She was the author of Prenatal Yoga and Natural Birth; Hygieia: A Woman's Herbal; and, with husband Frederick, Conscious Conception: Elemental Journey through the Labyrinth of Sexuality. She was listed in Who's Who of U.S. Writers, Editors, and Poets and was nominated for Woman of the Year Award in 1993 for Contributions to Medicine. Jeannine, mother of three, and much-loved member of APPPAH, died on December 1, 2005 at the age of 55.

Canadian Children's Rights Council: The Canadian Children's Rights Council considers circumcision to be genital mutilation of children.

It really seems like the tides are turning with regard to the way circumcising children is being viewed from an ethical standpoint.

Jen