My wife and I are trying to have a baby. One of the biggest concerns we have if it is a boy is circumcision. I am circumcised and my first reaction is to say "Well I wouldn't go back so it is the right choice". But unfortunately there is more to it than that. Circumcision started, in my mind, to remove sexual pleasure from the male because sex was the road to sin and only for reproduction and should not be enjoyed. Many nerves are removed from circumcision and I have heard sex is more pleasurable for males not circumcised, but unfortunately that is hard to know for sure.
Then there is the idea that it is a part of our culture now and completely acceptable. But what is it really other than male genital mutilation? They say that is is healthier, but I have also heard that the data for that claim is inconclusive.
Female circumcision disgust me and yet many cultures practice it. To them it is normal. I am sure that uncircumcised females in those cultures have "ugly" vaginas to them just as a lot of women have told me that an uncircumcised penis is "ugly".
I have seen a circumcision and it is horrifying. I dont know if I should do this to my future son. There is the part of me that thinks it is normal and I should. Then there is the part of me that sees it as another brutal religious act setup by an ancient brutal god to remove our sexuality that we, for some reason, still practice like idiots. Then we go through all this trouble to "prove" it is healthy to mutilate sex organs to justify the insane act.
What are some of your thoughts on this?
Seems like semantics. both 'necessary' and 'undue' are difficult to establish in a large number of cases. What we are looking at is cost/ benefit. If there is no cost, then the worst case scenario is a neutral result, so there really shouldn't be an issue. For that reason, I focused my wording on the cost side of the equation.
Whether you agree with that prioritization or not is obviously your prerogative, but I thought I'd at least explain my reasoning.
I do not believe that my government has any such mandate. Furthermore, I'm completely unaware of any such directive handed down to any government on the planet. I thought that was just a typical sort of expectation in western societies.
My point is that we do not remove any part of the body because of attempting to decrease a certain disease, or the transmission there of. What we do is to keep our children's bodies intact and try to keep them safe and educate them were possible to allow them to function normally in this world.
You come up with this dubious study, as if you care about (medical) science yet you fail to comprehend that medical organizations all around the world, including the WHO, have the position that there is no real reason/benefit for RIC. That being said, what information do you have that they do not?
Any reasonable person would at the very least have to admit of a few simple facts.
A) Circumcision does not increase hygiene, hygiene increases hygiene. Which is why medical organizations do not promote or advice RIC.
B) There are risks involved with the procedure, and I'm not even talking about possible traumatic experiences for the child, just simply injuries and deaths due to this procedure.
C) There are plenty of men that wish their parents did not circumcise them and plenty of people that attempt to restore their foreskin.
If these statements are true, and I believe they are, than why exactly do people continue this barbaric practice?
I can hardly believe this thread is still going. Do we have some final numbers on just how many men out of, say, one million, owe their lives to having been circumcised in infancy? Do we have some hard numbers on just how many males, out of a million, lost their lives or lost all sexual function because of circumcision?
If you are circumcised it is easier to deal with children that are also circumcised, less questions to answer. Though there is some Great debate about the subject there is very little proof that the results of circumcision are detrimental to the Man or Child. The one positive aspect of circumcision is cleanliness and reduced infections to the male and female.
I've never bought the 'matching father/son genitalia' argument for circumcision at all. Should the father shave all pubic hair to avoid confusing the child? What about facial hair, big muscles, all those differences between boys and men?
Unless there is a very clear and huge medical benefit, the risk of losing all sexual function is a risk that I think is just too great.
I have to agree with Heather. I don't understand the father/son matching argument either. Personally, I don't know why a son would see his fathers penis once he is old enough to notice a difference. Sport change rooms maybe ? Either way; he wouldn't stare. It is a silly argument. I also think it is ignorant to perform such an operation on your child just so they look a certain way; no parent should want that.
Do the people for circumcision actually know what the procedure entails ? It isnt a simple 'snip' ... I have seen open heart surgery and I gotta say; I couldnt watch a circumcision... Especially on a baby whom they can't put asleep.
My hubby wants his boy circumcised and I don't ... Everyone has a perference ; lets hope I have all girls :)
CaperMel, instead of hoping you have all girls, I hope you grow the balls to stand up to your husband in defense of your son.
I'm thinking that if she grows balls, well, pregnancy will be very unlikely.
LOL I don't need a set of balls, I have two perfectly well functioning ovaries. That being said, I don't plan on my son being circumcised but the child won't just be mine so we would have to discuss it. I simply plan on educating him on the topic. Personally, I don't think he would go through with doing it ... I do everything for him so I can't really see him tracking down a doctor who will actually do it, pay for it, go to the appointment alone and so forth. I wouldnt have any part in it. However, I would do everything in my power to save my child from harm because I don't believe a baby should suffer pain just for 'looks'. I think circumcision is wrong, unless medically necessary later in life.
You're very wise, and very well equipped as you are ;-)
This lengthy debate should be remembered when we debate religion. After every proposed 'reason' for circumcision has been utterly dismantled, and the pain and harm it results in clearly proven, Mr. Boudreau, expounds those same dis proven points with the added sorry reason, that it's easier to deal with your kids by getting them mutilated, so they won't ask why you don't have your foreskin anymore. If we are mature enough to have children, we should be mature enough to talk to them about their bodies and sexuality. Fathers learning to talk to their sons is less drastic than cutting them with a knife. You can't be THAT embarrassed, can you?