|
|
|
|
|
| Circumcision...To cut or not to cut?
Posted: 12/7/2005 8:21:41 PM | | I'm glad some women have brains in their head! How would someone like the hood of their clitoris cut away? Would you like that, HUH? Same thing!!! | |
|
| Circumcision...To cut or not to cut?
Posted: 12/7/2005 10:25:14 PM | Besides, was God wrong in making men the way they are born?
This is the same statement I've heard countless times as a child when I asked to get my ears pierced. "If God wanted you to have holes in your earlobes, he would have put them there." I know, it's not the same thing, yet in a weird kind of way it is. How many parents make the decision to have their baby girls ears pierced? This is purely cosmetic and many babies are done when they are only a couple of months old. Something to ponder.....should a girl not make the decision to have two painful holes punched into her ears, herself? Some parents make the decision to have their baby boy circumcised purely for cosmetic reasons, or because they want their son to look like his father. I think the decision to have a son circumcised under these conditions is wrong. | |
|
| Circumcision...To cut or not to cut?
Posted: 12/8/2005 6:39:32 AM | icalla... you should read up a bit on male mutilation before you "take issue" with anything i say. i did my research 17 years ago, when i had my son, and funny enough... the same, if not more literature is out there now. here's a link for you to browse through.
http://www.eskimo.com/~gburlin/mgm/facts.html
pay special attention to:
"Long-Term Adverse Outcomes"
Poor surgical result is not recognized until years later. Adverse consequences of infant circumcision on men’s health must be recognized by physicians, parents & legislators.(21)
Circumcision is a subtraction, removing one-third or more of entire penile skin - tragic loss of erogenous tissue.(22)
When sexually functioning tissue is removed, sexual functioning is altered. Penile changes are documented.(23)
Of 313 circumcised male respondents, 49.5% cited a sense of parental violation, 62% expressed feelings of mutilation, and 84% reported some degree of sexual harm [progressive loss of glans sensitivity, excess stimulation needed to reach orgasm, painful coitus and impotence].(24)
Body image survey found 20% of circumcised respondents cited dissatisfaction with their circumcision.(25)"
with the facts posted i challenge your argument that the clitoris is not the same as a man's foreskin. while most circumcised men have no sexual problems, at least that they are aware of, the statistics don't lie. the foreskin is a "sexually functioning tissue" just as the clitoris. circumcising a woman causes the same sexual disfunction. circumcision of either sex does not mean they are not capable of having sex, it simply means those people are not aroused or satisfied as intact males and females are. | |
|
| |
| Circumcision...To cut or not to cut?
Posted: 12/8/2005 2:24:53 PM | | If the father was missing an eye would you take one from the child?!!! Dumb reason to main a completely healthy boy! | |
|
| Circumcision...To cut or not to cut?
Posted: 12/8/2005 3:38:33 PM | Well, I don't think of it as "maiming". Any person who gets their ears pierced, or breast implants, or hair plugs is technically "maiming" their body.
I figure it is choice - you wanna do it, then do it - if not, then don't. Our agency has worked with over 16,000 clients in distress in the past 10+ years, and not one complained that their issues were due to circumcision. And, since it doesn't happen to women, and it is very rare for a man to have it done as an adult, there are extremely few people who have a valid viewpoint on which is better.
And medically there are pros and cons to both sides. | |
|
| Circumcision...To cut or not to cut?
Posted: 12/8/2005 4:04:44 PM | It is done to a healthy infant who is not GIVEN a choice. Pierce your ears, tattoo, whatever, YOUR choice. The infant is not allowed that right, which makes circumcision barbaric.
It is archaic and eventually will not be done at all. | |
|
| Circumcision...To cut or not to cut?
Posted: 12/8/2005 4:11:58 PM | To circumcise is neanderthal. A lot of people say they circ'ed their son 'cause dad was..and they didnt want their son to feel "different". Well...the times are changin'..thank God. IMO...to surgically alter a male baby ...for the mere sake of him being able to keep himself hygenic...is the same as mutilating a newborn female. True, some do this in the name of religion..for what, I have no idea....silly really. | |
|
| |
| Circumcision...To cut or not to cut?
Posted: 12/8/2005 7:38:17 PM | Well I decided NOT to have My son done.
I was feeling it should be his choice when he got older. Reason being; I watched many programs were men in their 40's were pissed to the gills in having it done, and were trying to bring their foreskin back etc... they are actual groups about this. Anyhoooooe like I said, I decided against it. When he became a later teen he asked for it, and he got it done. He loved the fact that it was his call, and feels great about having it done on his own terms. Whoooo knows, I could of got.......Heyyy were the heck is my skin????, if I had him done as a baby, were there is no going backwards, but forwards.
I TRUELY feel it should be their call when old enough. | |
|
| Circumcision...To cut or not to cut?
Posted: 12/8/2005 7:57:00 PM | | men aren't apt to discuss penis issues publicly due to their issues with penis envy. circumcised men will never understand anything other than what they were left with, while unaltered men enjoy the pleasures of being left fully in tact. as far as this being a health/hygene issue... that's a load of crap. if you can take a minute to wash your a-s-s, take ten to shave your face, you can take a few seconds to wash your unit. in tact men don't think of this as being an issue for them because it's the only penis they know... | |
|
icalla
|
Joined: 7/20/2005
Msg: 62 | |
| Circumcision...To cut or not to cut?
Posted: 12/8/2005 9:18:33 PM | Kitty,
Let me preface this by saying that I really respect you and your arguments. I'm not sucking up so you'll go easy on me... on the contrary... I've always enjoyed your posts in other threads. I admire your willingness to fight for your beliefs and your untiring feistiness. Besides, I love a good argument, and from what I've seen you do too.
I did my research about 3 years ago, and found many sheets like the one you cite. I did pay specialy attention to the section you posted: the references come from a conspiracy theory touting zine, and two other anti-circumcision publications. Not too objective really. This is what I found on BOTH sides of the issue. Lots of cross-reference to obscure and subjective articles and vague references to statistics that don't mean much unless you read the actual studies.
I don't have the time or the energy to go looking for things from the other side, so I'll just have to settle for being on the unpopular/losing side of this argument.
By the way, I did have my ears pierced when I was born, as do most Latin girls to this day. I'm glad I didn't have to suffer through it later. But my mom did say she wouldn't recommmend it, as it was too much trouble when trying to care for a newborn.
Back on topic: Nothing I read convinced me. As I posted already, I did talk to my doctor and my shrink, and both of them told me it wasn't a big deal either way.
What did convince me were three things: a conversation with a female rabbi (I talked to male rabbis too but they had little impact - I knew what they'd say before I asked); my then partner's problems with his intact penis including over-sensitivity (to the point of pain) that kept getting in the way; and reading statements written by men who'd had to choose whether or not to circumcise later in life, and their emotional and physical trauma.
If you have read other posts of mine, you may have noticed that I am well-educated, well-read, and very concerned about the well-being of children, especially my own. If I had found something in the literature to convince me that the effect of circumcision is as bad as the "truth seeker" says it is, then I probably would have gone against tradition. But I didn't.
I agonized over this decision, and I still question sometimes whether I was right. But it was a decision I made with the best intentions, with lots of research and interviews, and to the best of my ability. Same as every other major decision I've made for my son.
That's all I have to contribute without getting into other incendiary topics. I think I've said enough...
Hasta manana, and sweet dreams to all. | |
|
| Circumcision...To cut or not to cut?
Posted: 12/9/2005 6:32:30 AM | icalla... the feeling is mutual. i respect your opinion completely, don't doubt for one second that you are well educated, very articulate and i also appreciate a good, clean debate. i don't believe there is any sense in or need to question your choice, it's done. he will not know the difference and when he grows older it's doubtful he'll ask many questions... you did what you felt was right with your child and there's absolutely nothing wrong with the choice you made. just as there's nothing wrong with me choosing to leave my son in tact. we all have our reasons.
i honestly believe it is the in tact males that know and feel the difference, not just socially but sexually when they reach that point in their lives. this really is an elective, cosmetic, type of surgery and i don't know that there is a true reason for choosing to do this... medically speaking. unless a child has difficulty urinating or is experiencing pain or frequent irritation, i simply wouldn't circumcise. even in my son's case, doctors told us he would need to be circumcised... we went against those recomendations and he's fine today and thankful he's still in tact. i guess seeing it done was enough to keep my son's unit off the chopping block ;) doctors are so eager to cut into people and do all these nifty procedures that people don't need and we listen, trust them, and do what they recommend for no other reason than they seem to know best. parents should be more trusting of the decisions they can make on their own and not be talked into procedures like this with their young children. | |
|
| Circumcision...To cut or not to cut?
Posted: 12/9/2005 6:51:41 AM | Oh Please leave the poor boy child alone.
I have seen a child held down for this service and believe the little guy KNOWS what is going down. | |
|
ya472
|
Joined: 8/8/2005
Msg: 65 | |
| Circumcision...To cut or not to cut?
Posted: 12/9/2005 7:42:24 AM | ..
Quite simply. If a male child should be circumsized, then the female child should have a double mascectomy or be circumsized too.
The chance of a woman getting breast cancer outnumbers the incidents of cancer or other disease by leaving the foreskin intact.
Some lover's would likely find this sexy too.
Some people are nuts! (no pun intended)
.. | |
|
| Circumcision...To cut or not to cut?
Posted: 12/9/2005 10:10:16 AM | FACTS:
- Uncircumcised boys are about 10 times as likely to get serious kidney infections in the first year of life as are circumcised infants
- Uncircumcised men were first shown to be more likely to acquire heterosexual HIV infection over a decade ago, in articles in the leading medical journals "Lancet" and "New England Journal of Medicine". Since then over 40 separate studies have shown that uncircumcised men are more likely to become infected with HIV on heterosexual exposure. The ease with which the foreskin tears during intercourse, leaving mini-abrasions through which the virus enters, can lead to the infections.
- As with HIV, mini-abrasions of the foreskin during intercourse is the explanation for the fact that uncircumcised men are more likely to acquire certain (though not all) STIs.
- It has been known for over 100 years that circumcised men almost never get invasive penile cancer, a devastating disease which is more deadly than breast cancer (higher 5 year mortality rate). About 1400 U.S. men get this disease and over 200 die annually, almost all of them uncircumcised.
- Local foreskin infections (balanoposthitis) can occur at any age in uncircumcised males, but is most common at age 2-5 years, an age when the foreskin has often not yet completely separated, cannot be fully retracted, and genital cleanliness is more difficult to accomplish. In addition between 0.5% and 1% of boys will never be able to retract their foreskin due to a pinpoint opening at the end (phimosis) and will have to be circumcised at a later date when the procedure is more complex and difficult, and about 10 times more expensive.
- Published evidence shows that circumcised men have a wider variety of sexual activity, and women prefer circumcised men, mainly because of better genital hygiene. | |
|
ya472
|
Joined: 8/8/2005
Msg: 67 | |
| |
| |
| |
| Circumcision...To cut or not to cut?
Posted: 12/9/2005 7:27:20 PM | for every fact in favor of circumcision there are facts that support leaving baby boys in tact...
"INFANT MALE CIRCUMCISION
IS NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE
HEALTH & RIGHTS OF THE CHILD"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"FACT SHEET
Scope of the Problem
Current national rates: Australia 15%(1), Canada 20%(2), the United States 60%(3).
In the U.S., over 1.25 million infants annually - more than 3,300 babies each day - one child every 26 seconds.
The surgery wastes more than $250 million health care dollars annually(4) as well as untold personnel hours.
Globally, 20% of male children will be subjected to some form of non-medically indicated genital mutilation.(5)
Early and Current Rationale
(U.S.) physicians thought it logical to perform genital surgery on both sexes to stop masturbation. This rationale was initiated in the English-speaking countries during the 19th Century.(6)
The current medical rationale for circumcision developed after the operation was in wide practice.(7)
To make sons resemble their circumcised fathers, to conform socially with peers, to improve hygiene, to prevent phimosis, and as prophylaxis for infant urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases, AIDS, and cancer of the penis/cervix.(8)
Decision Making
The circumcision decision in the U.S. is emerging as a cultural ritual rather than the result of medical misunderstanding among parents. It is more an emotional than a rational decision.(9)
Other factors affect parents’ decisions, including esthetics, cultural attitudes, social pressures and tradition.(10)
Ultimate decision may hinge on non-medical considerations.(11)
Circumcision has become cultural surgery.(12)
Foreskin Function
When infant is incontinent, prepuce fulfills an essential function, to protect the glans.(13)
The foreskin is more than just penile skin necessary for a natural erection; it is specialized tissue, richly supplied with blood vessels, highly innervated, and uniquely endowed with stretch receptors. (T)he foreskin contribute(s) significantly to the sexual response of the intact male.(14)
This mucous-membrane contact [male foreskin and female labia] provides natural lubrication...and prevents dryness responsible for painful intercourse and chafing and abrasions that allow for entry of STDs, viral/bacterial.(15)
Penile Development
Development of the prepuce is incomplete in the newborn male child, and separation from the glans, rendering it retractable, does not usually occur until some time between 9 months and 3 years.(16)
(Infant) circumcision...traumatically interrupts the natural separation of the foreskin from the glans.(17)
Circumcision interferes with penile development, surgeon must tear skin from sensitive glans to permit removal.(18)
Immediate Risks and Complications
Complications are often overlooked or un(der)reported. Lacerations, skin loss, skin bridges, chordee, meatitis, stenosis, urinary retention, glans necrosis, penile loss, hemorrhage, sepsis, gangrene, meningitis.(19)
Literature abounds with reports, morbidity and death from circumcision Realistic (complication) figure is 2-10%.(20)
Long-Term Adverse Outcomes
Poor surgical result is not recognized until years later. Adverse consequences of infant circumcision on men’s health must be recognized by physicians, parents & legislators.(21)
Circumcision is a subtraction, removing one-third or more of entire penile skin - tragic loss of erogenous tissue.(22)
When sexually functioning tissue is removed, sexual functioning is altered. Penile changes are documented.(23)
Of 313 circumcised male respondents, 49.5% cited a sense of parental violation, 62% expressed feelings of mutilation, and 84% reported some degree of sexual harm [progressive loss of glans sensitivity, excess stimulation needed to reach orgasm, painful coitus and impotence].(24)
Body image survey found 20% of circumcised respondents cited dissatisfaction with their circumcision.(25)
Effects of Pain
Newborn infant responses to pain are similar to but greater than those in adult subjects. The persistence of specific behavioral changes after circumcision in neonates implies the presence of memory.(26)
Infant circumcision causes severe, persistent pain. Acetaminophen does not ameliorate pain of circumcision.(27)
Main structures for memory are functional in neonates and circumcision pain may have long-lasting effects.(28)
Maternal Bonding / Breastfeeding
Circumcision affects mother-infant interaction.(29)
When an infant is subjected to intolerable, overwhelming pain, it conceptualizes mother as participatory and responsible regardless of mother’s intent. Consequences for impaired bonding are significant.(30)
These are the first data suggesting a protective effect of breastfeeding against UTI.(31)
Breasts also produce large quantities of a hormone (GnRH) that may aid in development of a newborn’s brain.(32)
Infants feed less frequently after circumcision; observed deterioration may contribute to breast- feeding failure.(33)
A stressful, painful event such as circumcision appears to affect the feeding patterns.(34)
Questionable Benefits
Good hygiene can offer many advantages over circumcision.(35)
Circumcision has no significant effect on the incidence of common sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).(36)
Circumcision is not harmless and cannot be recommended without unequivocal proof of benefit.(37)
Not one confirmed UTI case in a normal male infant. All cases in infants with clear urinary birth defects.(38)
Antimicrobial management of UTI in infants is routine and outcome generally good. It is inappropriate at this time to recommend circumcision as a routine medically indicated procedure.(39)
Reported benefits in preventing cancer and infant UTIs are insignificant compared to surgical risks.(40)
Performing 100,000 mutilative procedures on newborns to possibly prevent cancer in one elderly man is absurd.(41)
Medical Ethics
It must be recognized that the child is normal as born and that circumcision inflicts loss of a normal body part and leaves a scar. This is contrary to the motto of medicine, “First Do No Harm.”(42)
The unnecessary removal of a functioning body organ in the name of tradition, custom or any other non-disease related cause should never be acceptable to the health profession...and breaches fundamental medical ethics.(43)
Children too young to give consent must be treated as individuals. The child must live with the outcome of decision.(44)
Obstetrical Involvement
Seventy-four percent (74%) of the Ob/Gyns surveyed perform circumcision. Ob-Gyn fees for circumcision range to $400, averaging $137 nationwide.(45)
Ob-Gyns not aware of preputial structure & function or growing numbers of men undergoing foreskin restoration.(46)
Restoration Movement
In North America many circumcised men are now becoming aware of the mutilation and the harm this has done to them, and some are seeking methods of replacing the lost prepuce.(47)
At the root of this reaction lies an awareness that a perfectly normal, healthy -- indeed, the most sensually responsive -- part of their penis was surgically amputated when too young/helpless to consent, refuse or resist.(48)
Children’s Rights
All childhood circumcisions are violations of human rights. ...It is the moral duty of educated professionals to protect health and rights of those with little or no social power to protect themselves.(49)
Circumcision is an issue of self-determination and autonomy.(50)
Imperative that children have the right to own their reproductive organs and to preserve natural sexual function.(51)
Circumcisions for personal preference of the parent(s) deny the infant the basic right to respect and autonomy.(52)
Every circumcision...is an assault on a child’s sexuality and a violation of his right to an intact body.(53)
Why Does It Continue?
Americans culturally acclimated/regard foreskin as non-essential, pathologic.(54)
Cultural, social and historical perspectives around infant circumcision control physicians and parents.(55)" | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| Circumcision...To cut or not to cut?
Posted: 12/10/2005 6:35:43 AM | | i have two sons who are older now, neither were circumcised and both were taught how to clean themselves at a very early age. i worked hard to make sure they understood how important it was to keep this area clean, and it must have worked, because neither has ever had any trouble with their foreskin. i simply prefer the way an uncut penis looks. | |
|
| |
|
| Page 3 of 11
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
|
Home
login 
