Why do you care what I decide to do to my son's penis when he is born?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't we have millions of men running around now who are extremely scarred? It is interesting that rarely do fathers get so very hysterical about this issue, but the mother sure do! Quite odd to be that obsessed with your child's and other children's genitalia.

This is what I think every time I see one of these threads. Considering the vast majority of grown men...even teens...have been circd in this society, you would think there would be very known epidemic problems based in what the anti-circ team is saying. I have yet to hear of one grown man express any trauma over their circumcisions.

No one is saying that millions experience long term trauma. They are saying that they have been scarred and that part of their penis has been removed for cosmetic reasons and that it is not justifiable to put a newborn baby who is unable to consent through this process. Many men express regret that this was done to them and that number will only increase as the procedure becomes less common and as your children become the unusual ones (just like in the rest of the world).

This is primarily a women's board, that is why the majority of people posting here are women.

My husband is very happy his parents made the choice to circ him. What if yours wishes you had done the same? It is much more traumatic and risky to do it as an adult.

Really, the histrionics around this issue just isn't warranted. It really makes you sound unstable and crazy.

You do realize you are talking to several posters, yes? What are you considering "histrionics"? Remember this is a cultural issue. If the discussion was about tattooing your newborn and some people vehemently disagreed with it would you say that they were unstable? What if it was about piercing your newborn's nose?

The people who care what other parents do with respect to circing. All weirdos and unstable. There is a lot of overlap with that group and anti-vaxers.

Let's take a look at this:

Vaccinations -- many are evidence based and have saved lives.
Circumcision -- no compelling medical evidence.

I follow evidence based practice. My kids are vaccinated if there is research that backs that up (as there frequently, but not always is). My kids are not cut because there is no compelling reason do to it and many compelling reasons to leave them as perfect as they were born.

If you want to discuss vaccinations more thoroughly, I suggest you start your own thread.

Absolutely false that circs don't have medical value. You truly haven't done your research if you think this is true.

Not the PP, but YOU haven't done any real research. For starters, look at this:

"only 1 of the arguments put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male circumcision; namely, the possible protection against urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss. The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts, and penile cancer, are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves."

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.abstract

Oh, how pathetic. This is COMMENTARY and OPINION on cultural bias in circumcision, not FACT!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do people who broadcast that anti-curc people are "crazy" really think that nearly 50% of people choose not to circ because we're nuts?

Or could it possibly be that I see not cutting as the default, and DS' father and I just didn't see a compelling reason to cut?

No. Just the ones who feel strongly about the children of others. Do what you want with your child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here - and by "we won't say it to your face" I don't mean that we are afraid to say it, but rather, we'd be too polite to say it. Or, we'd find it pointless to say it, or to make someone feel bad after the fact. Or that we don't give unsolicited advice. But it does not mean we don't have an opinion.

The truth is you know you'd look like the nutcase you are.

If anybody said that to me, they would be out of our lives so fast it would make their head spin.

Again, you lack the courage of your misguided convictions and you are totally two-faced.

Please post your full name here so that all the sane people can do our best to avoid you.

Why don't YOU post YOUR full name here, so we all of us normal folks know who to keep out of their homes so they won't be "judged"?

I think you'll find that those of us who don't mutilate are children are the normal ones here. Cutting at your children's genitalia = not normal. Crusading to disfigure the sexual organs of tiny babies? Not normal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here - and by "we won't say it to your face" I don't mean that we are afraid to say it, but rather, we'd be too polite to say it. Or, we'd find it pointless to say it, or to make someone feel bad after the fact. Or that we don't give unsolicited advice. But it does not mean we don't have an opinion.

The truth is you know you'd look like the nutcase you are.

If anybody said that to me, they would be out of our lives so fast it would make their head spin.

Again, you lack the courage of your misguided convictions and you are totally two-faced.

Please post your full name here so that all the sane people can do our best to avoid you.

Why don't YOU post YOUR full name here, so we all of us normal folks know who to keep out of their homes so they won't be "judged"?

I think you'll find that those of us who don't mutilate are children are the normal ones here. Cutting at your children's genitalia = not normal. Crusading to disfigure the sexual organs of tiny babies? Not normal.

Every time you use a word like "mutilate," you just show how uneducated and uniformed you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't we have millions of men running around now who are extremely scarred? It is interesting that rarely do fathers get so very hysterical about this issue, but the mother sure do! Quite odd to be that obsessed with your child's and other children's genitalia.

This is what I think every time I see one of these threads. Considering the vast majority of grown men...even teens...have been circd in this society, you would think there would be very known epidemic problems based in what the anti-circ team is saying. I have yet to hear of one grown man express any trauma over their circumcisions.

No one is saying that millions experience long term trauma. They are saying that they have been scarred and that part of their penis has been removed for cosmetic reasons and that it is not justifiable to put a newborn baby who is unable to consent through this process. Many men express regret that this was done to them and that number will only increase as the procedure becomes less common and as your children become the unusual ones (just like in the rest of the world).

This is primarily a women's board, that is why the majority of people posting here are women.

My husband is very happy his parents made the choice to circ him. What if yours wishes you had done the same? It is much more traumatic and risky to do it as an adult.

Really, the histrionics around this issue just isn't warranted. It really makes you sound unstable and crazy.

You do realize you are talking to several posters, yes? What are you considering "histrionics"? Remember this is a cultural issue. If the discussion was about tattooing your newborn and some people vehemently disagreed with it would you say that they were unstable? What if it was about piercing your newborn's nose?

The people who care what other parents do with respect to circing. All weirdos and unstable. There is a lot of overlap with that group and anti-vaxers.

Let's take a look at this:

Vaccinations -- many are evidence based and have saved lives.
Circumcision -- no compelling medical evidence.

I follow evidence based practice. My kids are vaccinated if there is research that backs that up (as there frequently, but not always is). My kids are not cut because there is no compelling reason do to it and many compelling reasons to leave them as perfect as they were born.

If you want to discuss vaccinations more thoroughly, I suggest you start your own thread.

Absolutely false that circs don't have medical value. You truly haven't done your research if you think this is true.

Not the PP, but YOU haven't done any real research. For starters, look at this:

"only 1 of the arguments put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male circumcision; namely, the possible protection against urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss. The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts, and penile cancer, are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves."

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.abstract

Oh, how pathetic. This is COMMENTARY and OPINION on cultural bias in circumcision, not FACT!

Might be a good idea for you to actually read it before make sweeping statements like that. Do you understand what a literature review is? Perhaps you should learn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here - and by "we won't say it to your face" I don't mean that we are afraid to say it, but rather, we'd be too polite to say it. Or, we'd find it pointless to say it, or to make someone feel bad after the fact. Or that we don't give unsolicited advice. But it does not mean we don't have an opinion.

The truth is you know you'd look like the nutcase you are.

If anybody said that to me, they would be out of our lives so fast it would make their head spin.

Again, you lack the courage of your misguided convictions and you are totally two-faced.

Please post your full name here so that all the sane people can do our best to avoid you.

Why don't YOU post YOUR full name here, so we all of us normal folks know who to keep out of their homes so they won't be "judged"?

I think you'll find that those of us who don't mutilate are children are the normal ones here. Cutting at your children's genitalia = not normal. Crusading to disfigure the sexual organs of tiny babies? Not normal.

Every time you use a word like "mutilate," you just show how uneducated and uniformed you are.

I realize that you find the word mutilate to be provocative but I suggest you look up the definition if you don't understand it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't we have millions of men running around now who are extremely scarred? It is interesting that rarely do fathers get so very hysterical about this issue, but the mother sure do! Quite odd to be that obsessed with your child's and other children's genitalia.

This is what I think every time I see one of these threads. Considering the vast majority of grown men...even teens...have been circd in this society, you would think there would be very known epidemic problems based in what the anti-circ team is saying. I have yet to hear of one grown man express any trauma over their circumcisions.

No one is saying that millions experience long term trauma. They are saying that they have been scarred and that part of their penis has been removed for cosmetic reasons and that it is not justifiable to put a newborn baby who is unable to consent through this process. Many men express regret that this was done to them and that number will only increase as the procedure becomes less common and as your children become the unusual ones (just like in the rest of the world).

This is primarily a women's board, that is why the majority of people posting here are women.

My husband is very happy his parents made the choice to circ him. What if yours wishes you had done the same? It is much more traumatic and risky to do it as an adult.

Really, the histrionics around this issue just isn't warranted. It really makes you sound unstable and crazy.

You do realize you are talking to several posters, yes? What are you considering "histrionics"? Remember this is a cultural issue. If the discussion was about tattooing your newborn and some people vehemently disagreed with it would you say that they were unstable? What if it was about piercing your newborn's nose?

The people who care what other parents do with respect to circing. All weirdos and unstable. There is a lot of overlap with that group and anti-vaxers.

Let's take a look at this:

Vaccinations -- many are evidence based and have saved lives.
Circumcision -- no compelling medical evidence.

I follow evidence based practice. My kids are vaccinated if there is research that backs that up (as there frequently, but not always is). My kids are not cut because there is no compelling reason do to it and many compelling reasons to leave them as perfect as they were born.

If you want to discuss vaccinations more thoroughly, I suggest you start your own thread.

Absolutely false that circs don't have medical value. You truly haven't done your research if you think this is true.

Not the PP, but YOU haven't done any real research. For starters, look at this:

"only 1 of the arguments put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male circumcision; namely, the possible protection against urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss. The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts, and penile cancer, are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves."

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.abstract

Oh, how pathetic. This is COMMENTARY and OPINION on cultural bias in circumcision, not FACT!

Might be a good idea for you to actually read it before make sweeping statements like that. Do you understand what a literature review is? Perhaps you should learn.

I did read it. And you did some deceitful editing, leaving out the words, "To these authors,"

So basically the U.S. doctors decided one thing based on their view of the evidence, while European doctors looked at the same evidence and decided something else.

Their review isn't more valid than the U.S. doctors as they are mired in the same cultural issues, only of the flip side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an older child. I have never participated in changing the diapers of nor potty training the children of people I was not related to. When changing my child, I did it to give my child the privacy they deserved and I never looked at another naked child on purpose. Who are all these perverted people looking at other people's children and looking long enough to form an opinion on their genitalia? I think less of those people.

That's fine, for you. But there are many people, myself included, who participate in some kind of baby-sitting swap that may at some point involving changing the diaper of someone else's child. I have changed the diapers of boy children that are not mine in that context, and yes, I have noticed if they are circumcised or not, in the same way I've noticed any other physical characteristic about that child. I'm not going out of my way to stare at the genitalia of someone else's child, but what you're saying is that in that situation, you would think less of me for changing a diaper? Should I allow my friend's son to sit in a poopy diaper until they get back from date night just so that you won't think less of me?

If you are getting your panties in a twist over my sons penis, just leave the diaper on. And keep your hands to yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't we have millions of men running around now who are extremely scarred? It is interesting that rarely do fathers get so very hysterical about this issue, but the mother sure do! Quite odd to be that obsessed with your child's and other children's genitalia.

This is what I think every time I see one of these threads. Considering the vast majority of grown men...even teens...have been circd in this society, you would think there would be very known epidemic problems based in what the anti-circ team is saying. I have yet to hear of one grown man express any trauma over their circumcisions.

No one is saying that millions experience long term trauma. They are saying that they have been scarred and that part of their penis has been removed for cosmetic reasons and that it is not justifiable to put a newborn baby who is unable to consent through this process. Many men express regret that this was done to them and that number will only increase as the procedure becomes less common and as your children become the unusual ones (just like in the rest of the world).

This is primarily a women's board, that is why the majority of people posting here are women.

My husband is very happy his parents made the choice to circ him. What if yours wishes you had done the same? It is much more traumatic and risky to do it as an adult.

Really, the histrionics around this issue just isn't warranted. It really makes you sound unstable and crazy.

You do realize you are talking to several posters, yes? What are you considering "histrionics"? Remember this is a cultural issue. If the discussion was about tattooing your newborn and some people vehemently disagreed with it would you say that they were unstable? What if it was about piercing your newborn's nose?

The people who care what other parents do with respect to circing. All weirdos and unstable. There is a lot of overlap with that group and anti-vaxers.

Let's take a look at this:

Vaccinations -- many are evidence based and have saved lives.
Circumcision -- no compelling medical evidence.

I follow evidence based practice. My kids are vaccinated if there is research that backs that up (as there frequently, but not always is). My kids are not cut because there is no compelling reason do to it and many compelling reasons to leave them as perfect as they were born.

If you want to discuss vaccinations more thoroughly, I suggest you start your own thread.

Absolutely false that circs don't have medical value. You truly haven't done your research if you think this is true.

Not the PP, but YOU haven't done any real research. For starters, look at this:

"only 1 of the arguments put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male circumcision; namely, the possible protection against urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss. The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts, and penile cancer, are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves."

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.abstract

Oh, how pathetic. This is COMMENTARY and OPINION on cultural bias in circumcision, not FACT!

Might be a good idea for you to actually read it before make sweeping statements like that. Do you understand what a literature review is? Perhaps you should learn.

I did read it. And you did some deceitful editing, leaving out the words, "To these authors,"

So basically the U.S. doctors decided one thing based on their view of the evidence, while European doctors looked at the same evidence and decided something else.

Their review isn't more valid than the U.S. doctors as they are mired in the same cultural issues, only of the flip side.

Deceitful editing? You're nuts. Okay, here's the full abstract lest you think that not including every word is "deceitful" - I suggest you read the full article though. Here's the link to that PDF.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.full.pdf+html

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently released its new Technical Report and Policy Statement on male circumcision, concluding that current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks. The technical report is based on the scrutiny of a large number of complex scientific articles. Therefore, while striving for objectivity, the conclusions drawn by the 8 task force members reflect what these individual physicians perceived as trustworthy evidence. Seen from the outside, cultural bias reflecting the normality of nontherapeutic male circumcision in the United States seems obvious, and the report’s conclusions are different from those reached by physicians in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada, and Australia. In this commentary, a different view is presented by non–US-based physicians and representatives of general medical associations and societies for pediatrics, pediatric surgery, and pediatric urology in Northern Europe. To these authors, only 1 of the arguments put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male circumcision; namely, the possible protection against urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss. The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts, and penile cancer, are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't we have millions of men running around now who are extremely scarred? It is interesting that rarely do fathers get so very hysterical about this issue, but the mother sure do! Quite odd to be that obsessed with your child's and other children's genitalia.

This is what I think every time I see one of these threads. Considering the vast majority of grown men...even teens...have been circd in this society, you would think there would be very known epidemic problems based in what the anti-circ team is saying. I have yet to hear of one grown man express any trauma over their circumcisions.

No one is saying that millions experience long term trauma. They are saying that they have been scarred and that part of their penis has been removed for cosmetic reasons and that it is not justifiable to put a newborn baby who is unable to consent through this process. Many men express regret that this was done to them and that number will only increase as the procedure becomes less common and as your children become the unusual ones (just like in the rest of the world).

This is primarily a women's board, that is why the majority of people posting here are women.

My husband is very happy his parents made the choice to circ him. What if yours wishes you had done the same? It is much more traumatic and risky to do it as an adult.

Really, the histrionics around this issue just isn't warranted. It really makes you sound unstable and crazy.

You do realize you are talking to several posters, yes? What are you considering "histrionics"? Remember this is a cultural issue. If the discussion was about tattooing your newborn and some people vehemently disagreed with it would you say that they were unstable? What if it was about piercing your newborn's nose?

The people who care what other parents do with respect to circing. All weirdos and unstable. There is a lot of overlap with that group and anti-vaxers.

Let's take a look at this:

Vaccinations -- many are evidence based and have saved lives.
Circumcision -- no compelling medical evidence.

I follow evidence based practice. My kids are vaccinated if there is research that backs that up (as there frequently, but not always is). My kids are not cut because there is no compelling reason do to it and many compelling reasons to leave them as perfect as they were born.

If you want to discuss vaccinations more thoroughly, I suggest you start your own thread.

Absolutely false that circs don't have medical value. You truly haven't done your research if you think this is true.

Not the PP, but YOU haven't done any real research. For starters, look at this:

"only 1 of the arguments put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male circumcision; namely, the possible protection against urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss. The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts, and penile cancer, are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves."

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.abstract

Oh, how pathetic. This is COMMENTARY and OPINION on cultural bias in circumcision, not FACT!

Might be a good idea for you to actually read it before make sweeping statements like that. Do you understand what a literature review is? Perhaps you should learn.

I did read it. And you did some deceitful editing, leaving out the words, "To these authors,"

So basically the U.S. doctors decided one thing based on their view of the evidence, while European doctors looked at the same evidence and decided something else.

Their review isn't more valid than the U.S. doctors as they are mired in the same cultural issues, only of the flip side.

So you agree that when the AAP changed their guidelines (which still fall short of actually recommending circumcision) it was simply commentary and opinion? You can't have it both ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't we have millions of men running around now who are extremely scarred? It is interesting that rarely do fathers get so very hysterical about this issue, but the mother sure do! Quite odd to be that obsessed with your child's and other children's genitalia.

This is what I think every time I see one of these threads. Considering the vast majority of grown men...even teens...have been circd in this society, you would think there would be very known epidemic problems based in what the anti-circ team is saying. I have yet to hear of one grown man express any trauma over their circumcisions.

No one is saying that millions experience long term trauma. They are saying that they have been scarred and that part of their penis has been removed for cosmetic reasons and that it is not justifiable to put a newborn baby who is unable to consent through this process. Many men express regret that this was done to them and that number will only increase as the procedure becomes less common and as your children become the unusual ones (just like in the rest of the world).

This is primarily a women's board, that is why the majority of people posting here are women.

My husband is very happy his parents made the choice to circ him. What if yours wishes you had done the same? It is much more traumatic and risky to do it as an adult.

Really, the histrionics around this issue just isn't warranted. It really makes you sound unstable and crazy.

You do realize you are talking to several posters, yes? What are you considering "histrionics"? Remember this is a cultural issue. If the discussion was about tattooing your newborn and some people vehemently disagreed with it would you say that they were unstable? What if it was about piercing your newborn's nose?

The people who care what other parents do with respect to circing. All weirdos and unstable. There is a lot of overlap with that group and anti-vaxers.

Let's take a look at this:

Vaccinations -- many are evidence based and have saved lives.
Circumcision -- no compelling medical evidence.

I follow evidence based practice. My kids are vaccinated if there is research that backs that up (as there frequently, but not always is). My kids are not cut because there is no compelling reason do to it and many compelling reasons to leave them as perfect as they were born.

If you want to discuss vaccinations more thoroughly, I suggest you start your own thread.

Absolutely false that circs don't have medical value. You truly haven't done your research if you think this is true.

Not the PP, but YOU haven't done any real research. For starters, look at this:

"only 1 of the arguments put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male circumcision; namely, the possible protection against urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss. The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts, and penile cancer, are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves."

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.abstract

Oh, how pathetic. This is COMMENTARY and OPINION on cultural bias in circumcision, not FACT!

Might be a good idea for you to actually read it before make sweeping statements like that. Do you understand what a literature review is? Perhaps you should learn.

I did read it. And you did some deceitful editing, leaving out the words, "To these authors,"

So basically the U.S. doctors decided one thing based on their view of the evidence, while European doctors looked at the same evidence and decided something else.

Their review isn't more valid than the U.S. doctors as they are mired in the same cultural issues, only of the flip side.

Deceitful editing? You're nuts. Okay, here's the full abstract lest you think that not including every word is "deceitful" - I suggest you read the full article though. Here's the link to that PDF.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.full.pdf+html

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently released its new Technical Report and Policy Statement on male circumcision, concluding that current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks. The technical report is based on the scrutiny of a large number of complex scientific articles. Therefore, while striving for objectivity, the conclusions drawn by the 8 task force members reflect what these individual physicians perceived as trustworthy evidence. Seen from the outside, cultural bias reflecting the normality of nontherapeutic male circumcision in the United States seems obvious, and the report’s conclusions are different from those reached by physicians in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada, and Australia. In this commentary, a different view is presented by non–US-based physicians and representatives of general medical associations and societies for pediatrics, pediatric surgery, and pediatric urology in Northern Europe. To these authors, only 1 of the arguments put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male circumcision; namely, the possible protection against urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss. The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts, and penile cancer, are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves.

Again the U.S. doctors' view is not less valid than the European view. It's a different opinion based on the same evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would not let someone as judgmental and clearly in need of therapy change my son's diapers. Just would not do it. We don't have a lot of judgmental psychos in our boys diapers. Just sayin'

Yes, this. It's astonishing this poster has any friends at all. Certainly, the second Judge Judy mentioned that was too bad that the other mother "mutilated" her son would be the end of the friendship -- and every parent in a several mile radius would know to avoid her like the plague.

The thing is, most of us who think you did the wrong thing won't say it to your face. A poster upthread articulated it very well. Yes, we notice (or it comes up) and we don't say a word because what can we do once you've done it? If you ask me what I think, I'll tell you what I believe, and if you ask my advice on doing it or not, I will not sugarcoat my opinion, either. But I would not say to anyone, "you mutilated your baby!" any more than I'd say "I can't believe you didn't fully vaccinate (I do)" or anything else. I DO have an opinion on it, I do think less of you and wonder how, as PP said, an otherwise smart and nice person would decide to do such a thing, and then I'd move on. I know lots of people who have circumcised. I've never mentioned my thoughts on it to them. But they are still my thoughts. You can be pretty sure that anyone who chose NOT to do it has an opinion on it. Most of us aren't going to put it in your face unless you ask (as the OP of this thread did).

And you can be pretty sure that those of us who had our sons circumcised has an opinion on it. Just because you came to the opposite conclusion doesn't mean we didn't do research or think about it deeply. I'm not going to say anything when I see your son is uncircumcised, but I'm going to be thinking things about you, too, so you needn't act as if you're doing us unenlightened morons a favor by not lecturing us. Because I can assure you, that feeling goes both ways.

So true! The one mom I knew who did not circ was the same mom who did not vaccinate -- so unnatural, and so on. She is not vry bright or well educated.

[Anonymous]

The US doctors' view isn't really even that different. Neither recommends routine infant cirumcision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't we have millions of men running around now who are extremely scarred? It is interesting that rarely do fathers get so very hysterical about this issue, but the mother sure do! Quite odd to be that obsessed with your child's and other children's genitalia.

This is what I think every time I see one of these threads. Considering the vast majority of grown men...even teens...have been circd in this society, you would think there would be very known epidemic problems based in what the anti-circ team is saying. I have yet to hear of one grown man express any trauma over their circumcisions.

No one is saying that millions experience long term trauma. They are saying that they have been scarred and that part of their penis has been removed for cosmetic reasons and that it is not justifiable to put a newborn baby who is unable to consent through this process. Many men express regret that this was done to them and that number will only increase as the procedure becomes less common and as your children become the unusual ones (just like in the rest of the world).

This is primarily a women's board, that is why the majority of people posting here are women.

My husband is very happy his parents made the choice to circ him. What if yours wishes you had done the same? It is much more traumatic and risky to do it as an adult.

Really, the histrionics around this issue just isn't warranted. It really makes you sound unstable and crazy.

You do realize you are talking to several posters, yes? What are you considering "histrionics"? Remember this is a cultural issue. If the discussion was about tattooing your newborn and some people vehemently disagreed with it would you say that they were unstable? What if it was about piercing your newborn's nose?

The people who care what other parents do with respect to circing. All weirdos and unstable. There is a lot of overlap with that group and anti-vaxers.

Let's take a look at this:

Vaccinations -- many are evidence based and have saved lives.
Circumcision -- no compelling medical evidence.

I follow evidence based practice. My kids are vaccinated if there is research that backs that up (as there frequently, but not always is). My kids are not cut because there is no compelling reason do to it and many compelling reasons to leave them as perfect as they were born.

If you want to discuss vaccinations more thoroughly, I suggest you start your own thread.

Absolutely false that circs don't have medical value. You truly haven't done your research if you think this is true.

Not the PP, but YOU haven't done any real research. For starters, look at this:

"only 1 of the arguments put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male circumcision; namely, the possible protection against urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss. The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts, and penile cancer, are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves."

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.abstract

Oh, how pathetic. This is COMMENTARY and OPINION on cultural bias in circumcision, not FACT!

Might be a good idea for you to actually read it before make sweeping statements like that. Do you understand what a literature review is? Perhaps you should learn.

I did read it. And you did some deceitful editing, leaving out the words, "To these authors,"

So basically the U.S. doctors decided one thing based on their view of the evidence, while European doctors looked at the same evidence and decided something else.

Their review isn't more valid than the U.S. doctors as they are mired in the same cultural issues, only of the flip side.

Deceitful editing? You're nuts. Okay, here's the full abstract lest you think that not including every word is "deceitful" - I suggest you read the full article though. Here's the link to that PDF.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.full.pdf+html

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently released its new Technical Report and Policy Statement on male circumcision, concluding that current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks. The technical report is based on the scrutiny of a large number of complex scientific articles. Therefore, while striving for objectivity, the conclusions drawn by the 8 task force members reflect what these individual physicians perceived as trustworthy evidence. Seen from the outside, cultural bias reflecting the normality of nontherapeutic male circumcision in the United States seems obvious, and the report’s conclusions are different from those reached by physicians in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada, and Australia. In this commentary, a different view is presented by non–US-based physicians and representatives of general medical associations and societies for pediatrics, pediatric surgery, and pediatric urology in Northern Europe. To these authors, only 1 of the arguments put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male circumcision; namely, the possible protection against urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss. The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts, and penile cancer, are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves.

Again the U.S. doctors' view is not less valid than the European view. It's a different opinion based on the same evidence.

But the US view is sole in the world, yes? And they were not reviewing the same evidence - they didn't each look at the same 10 research articles, for example. The AAP doctors ignored much of the evidence that they could have taken into account. But none of this negates the fact that if you claim this is opinion and commentary then you must say the same thing of the AAP's guidelines which don't even go so far as to say that they recommend circumcision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would not let someone as judgmental and clearly in need of therapy change my son's diapers. Just would not do it. We don't have a lot of judgmental psychos in our boys diapers. Just sayin'

Yes, this. It's astonishing this poster has any friends at all. Certainly, the second Judge Judy mentioned that was too bad that the other mother "mutilated" her son would be the end of the friendship -- and every parent in a several mile radius would know to avoid her like the plague.

The thing is, most of us who think you did the wrong thing won't say it to your face. A poster upthread articulated it very well. Yes, we notice (or it comes up) and we don't say a word because what can we do once you've done it? If you ask me what I think, I'll tell you what I believe, and if you ask my advice on doing it or not, I will not sugarcoat my opinion, either. But I would not say to anyone, "you mutilated your baby!" any more than I'd say "I can't believe you didn't fully vaccinate (I do)" or anything else. I DO have an opinion on it, I do think less of you and wonder how, as PP said, an otherwise smart and nice person would decide to do such a thing, and then I'd move on. I know lots of people who have circumcised. I've never mentioned my thoughts on it to them. But they are still my thoughts. You can be pretty sure that anyone who chose NOT to do it has an opinion on it. Most of us aren't going to put it in your face unless you ask (as the OP of this thread did).

And you can be pretty sure that those of us who had our sons circumcised has an opinion on it. Just because you came to the opposite conclusion doesn't mean we didn't do research or think about it deeply. I'm not going to say anything when I see your son is uncircumcised, but I'm going to be thinking things about you, too, so you needn't act as if you're doing us unenlightened morons a favor by not lecturing us. Because I can assure you, that feeling goes both ways.

So true! The one mom I knew who did not circ was the same mom who did not vaccinate -- so unnatural, and so on. She is not vry bright or well educated.

Whereas you, you must be so smart to have made the choice that you did! You obviously read all the research to come to the conclusion you did! You didn't just say, "I don't have a penis so it's up to his father" or "I want my son to look like his dad". No, you weighed up the pros and cons.

Oh, you are hilarious!! So entertaining!