Your Garage Up to 80 Percent Off Textbooks Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Benjamin Leftwich Fire TV Stick Health, Household and Grocery Back to School Totes Summer-Event-Garden Amazon Cash Back Offer ElvisandNixon ElvisandNixon ElvisandNixon  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis Water Sports STEM
Customer Discussions > Health forum

Infant circumcision

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jun 10, 2011 4:21:46 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 12, 2011 9:47:01 PM PDT
Gumbee65 says:
I'm a man that was circumcised as a baby and I really wish I wasn't but more importantly, I was denied my choice to keep a functional, healthy, erotogenic body part. I'm not saying I'm bitter or angry. For me, this is a human rights issue:

A ritual/religious pin-prick on a baby girl's genitals, to draw one drop of blood, is called Type 4 female genital mutilation (FGM) and has been illegal since March 1997.
ALL forms of FGM - equal to or less invasive then male circumcision - are illegal for ANY reason, including religion. Yet, a parent can remove a baby boy's foreskin for ANY reason including, "just because" and "I think it looks better". This isn't equal rights under the law but a violation of the 14th Amendment's "Equal Protection Clause", the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", adopted by the United Nations and the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms".

Should parents have the choice to cut their children's genitals?

Posted on Jun 10, 2011 5:16:22 PM PDT

Posted on Jun 10, 2011 6:50:45 PM PDT
M. SOLANO says:
Absolutely not! I have two daughters and my last child was a son. The hospital doctor kept insisting on a circumcision. If wouldn't do it to my daughter (yes, there is a female form of circumcision practiced in other countries) why in the world would I do it to my son???

Posted on Jun 10, 2011 8:17:39 PM PDT
Sorry to agree and the same happened to me. But there is a way to restore a foreskin without surgery. you won't get certain patrs that were removed. But is will be better than what you have because of increased sensations. Check out what many are doing to help them selves. And if you want information from a woman's point of view I suggest a book called "sex as nature intended". The book disproves many myths and tells how sex with a circumcised penis can be very painful for both partners but especially a woman. If we all had our natural penis people would think that the circumcised penis is ugly.

Posted on Jun 10, 2011 9:43:17 PM PDT
TD says:
>>Should parents have the choice to cut their children's genitals?

If there is no immediate medical issue present, no. The doctor's patient is the child, not the parent.

Posted on Jun 10, 2011 10:26:22 PM PDT
Gumbee65 says:
Thanks for the info Jeff and I agree that there are MANY erotogenic nerves permanently lost to circumcision. The foreskin has value.

Posted on Jun 11, 2011 12:09:19 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 11, 2011 1:02:54 AM PDT
J.Espresso says:
Our son was born almost a year ago. Initially, I wasn't sure if I was going to circumcise or not. I was circumcised myself, and it just wasn't something I'd put much thought into until I had to. It didn't take much research however before the choice not to circumcise was obvious, for some of the reasons stated above. (1) Why remove otherwise healthy tissue if there is no compelling medical reason to do so, and (2) It's not my body part -- it's his body part, so it should be his choice.

But the part of my research that put me over the top, was viewing a video of an actual circumcision. It was, in a word, horrifying. The infant was strapped down to restrain him during the struggle, and to be honest, I couldn't get through the entire video, as the blood curdling screams made me look away in disgust and horror. It was obvious that this was very painful for the infant. Why, on earth, would I subject my newborn infant this torture for no compelling medical reason? It would be hard enough to do if there was a compelling medical reason -- but there isn't.

I don't buy the religious justification. Like any right, yours ends where someone else's body begins. Your right to throw a punch to express yourself ends at the tip of my (or someone else's) nose. If a religious sect wanted to tattoo a child, or remove the tip of an earlobe, or to extract a toenail, our society wouldn't allow it, and for good reason. So why do we continue to allow this?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 11, 2011 1:11:17 AM PDT
Carol Hicks says:
No. The majority of people that I have discussed this with will say that it is done for reasons of cleanliness, if not for religious reasons. I decided to not circumcise my son 29 years ago when it was almost unheard of not to circumcise in this country. Fortunately, my son was born in a teaching hospital and when the doctor came to have me sign the consent, she told me the complications....pain, infection, loss of sensation and possible disfigurement. I had decided before I went to the hospital that I would not put him through that. I didn't feel that I had the right to have something done to him that could possibly reduce his sexual sensitivity. Pediatricians that I had taken him to need education about caring for an uncircumcised child. I was told that I needed to retract the foreskin and clean underneath it. The doctor did this and my son cried because it hurt. I researched as much as I could (no internet back then) and found they were all wrong. Obviously, doctors need some education about this and hopefully since this is not a taboo topic any longer they will get educated. When a boy starts having erections, the foreskin gradually retracts and it should never be forced. As far as cleanliness...a daily shower works wonders.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 11, 2011 5:10:54 PM PDT
Real217 says:
"Its not my body part, its his body part", right.

People who shouldnt have kids keep having kids. Letting kids make decisions when they aren't supposed to. Is that all the reason you have? cos its a pretty lame one. I personally really dont care, there are minor advantages when a male child is circumcised, as opposed to when not circumcised. So stop with the fear mongering. Nothing bad happens when a child is circumcised, when not circumcised, the only disadvantage that makes sense to me is the cleanliness issue, besides that, i dont see anything wrong with being uncircumcised.

Was strapped down? there are countless procedures where your kid might need to be strapped down in order to help the infant, stop the fear mongering again.

"Dad, i want to buy a gun today, do you mind" You better not say no, since we're giving all responsibility to kids now. smh

I'm circumcising all my kids. Deal.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 11, 2011 6:52:47 PM PDT
lisfolks says:
The circumcision is indeed very painful for the newborn boy. And, again, our society does not allow anything like this to be done to girls. We're making a huge deal of how people in other cultures should STOP doing things like this to girls. Yet, we don't care about what happens to boys?

Real217: my brother was circumcized as a newborn, "just because". When he was 3 years old, he stopped being able to pee. The circumcision had been done wrong, and the tissue had grown closed over the opening of his urethra. He had to have surgery again to re-open the urethra. He screamed bloody murder every time he went to the bathroom and tried so hard not to pee for about 2 weeks 'til all was healed again.

It's not a matter of fear-mongering - it's a matter of sharing information. We are in a society that supposedly respects each other as human beings. If there is no medical reason to cut on a person, then we shouldn't be cutting on that person. If there is no clear medical reason to perform surgery on a person, then that person - when they are old enough, of course - should be able to make their own decision.

Oh, and if that's not enough to convince you, since you "really dont care", then realize that you're paying the doctor as part of the bill for the birth to perform that unnecessary surgery. Hmm...

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 11, 2011 8:47:28 PM PDT
Real217 says:
The reason its not done to girls is because there is no medically justifiable reason to do so, not because they are women. i'm not going to argue the benefits of circumcision with you, your brother was unlucky, i'm sorry about that, but one doctor made a mistake doesnt mean circumcision is the devil, he made a mistake ok, people die from tooth extraction you know, i guess tooth extraction is the devil now too? please.

Posted on Jun 12, 2011 1:30:40 AM PDT
@ lisfolks:

Sounds like your brother had Meatal Stenosis. Happens to varying degrees in 10% of those circumcised with Routine Neonatal Circumcision (RNC). That was a serious one. The specific statistic reference came the the University of Texas Medical School. Some others state 9%.

Posted on Jun 12, 2011 1:39:36 AM PDT
@ Real217:

Apples and oranges.

No disease is present with RNC.
Tooth extraction is usually necessary from disease. Tooth decay is the most common infection in humans. Death more likely than not comes from complications involving coronary disease. Periodontal disease often becomes a systemic infection which further aggravates heart conditions.

Posted on Jun 12, 2011 2:00:38 AM PDT
T. Zehrer says:
Circumcision probably matters little when you're in your teens, 20s, 30s and 40s. I'm 64...IT MATTERS NOW! I've lost some of the most concentrated nerve endings in my body...and now I know it.

Think about it!

Posted on Jun 12, 2011 8:58:28 AM PDT
A. Flowers says:
If anyone here is a Facebooker, come join The Whole Network.!/WholeNetwork

There are a few other intactivist organizations on Facebook too. We support a boy's right to whole genitals at birth, (and his right to choose circumcision when he comes of age if that is what he wants). We also distribute information regarding some of the myths about circumcision, stuff like that.

There is not a single major medical organization on the planet that recommends non-therapeutic routine infant circumcision. Not one. So why are so many doctors still insisting on doing it? (Money). Why are so many parents still allowing their baby boys to be strapped down and cut on? (Tradition and/or misinformation).

We can solve misinformation - we can spread the word, and you can insist that your doctor not do it. Boys have the right to be whole.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2011 9:06:55 AM PDT

<<i guess tooth extraction is the devil now too? please.>>

No, the Dentist is the Devil, in all cultures. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2011 9:10:13 AM PDT
TD says:
>>The reason its not done to girls is because there is no medically justifiable reason to do so

Same with boys. And it used to be done to girls right here in the US, up until the 1960s. Insurance companies stopped covering it as late as 1978, and it was only made illegal here in 1997.

>>i'm not going to argue the benefits of circumcision with you

What are these "benefits"? Just about every "benefit" claimed by proponents of RNC over the past 150 years has proved false (or at least not proved true).

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2011 9:12:03 AM PDT
TD says:
>>Letting kids make decisions when they aren't supposed to.

Like which body parts they get to keep. That's clearly a decision for someone else, right?

Posted on Jun 12, 2011 9:42:54 AM PDT
@ DrB.

There is a saying: "Doctors bury their mistakes."

Welcome to the Pit, as the pendulum swings - evermore. :-)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2011 11:10:06 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 12, 2011 11:10:45 AM PDT
A. Flowers,

Can you join if your not intact?
Do you have to prove it?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2011 11:30:46 AM PDT
A. Flowers says:
James -
Of course circumcized men can be intactivists too! The Whole Network is for *any* people who support genital integrity for baby boys. Its not your fault that you were subjected to routine infant circumcision years ago.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2011 4:57:25 PM PDT

<<Oh, and if that's not enough to convince you, since you "really dont care", then realize that you're paying the doctor as part of the bill for the birth to perform that unnecessary surgery. Hmm...>>

People request and pay for unnecessary surgery all the time. The cost of circumcision is so low that it is not a deterrent.

Posted on Jun 12, 2011 5:47:32 PM PDT
Barb Fisher says:
I have two sons and I decided not to circumcise them even though my husband is. I am happy with my decision and i hope they will be too in the future. Majority of my friends that have male children had them circumcised, just because everyone does it. I think it's so unncecessary and trully painful, even if the infant doesn't remember the pain. I don't think it's my right as a parent to put them through unncecessary pain.

Posted on Jun 12, 2011 7:04:41 PM PDT
Dang Dr.B. you're making medicine appear like the prostitute on "My Name is Earl." ;-)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2011 8:36:18 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 159 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Health forum


This discussion

Discussion in:  Health forum
Participants:  447
Total posts:  3952
Initial post:  Jun 10, 2011
Latest post:  Dec 25, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 26 customers

Search Customer Discussions