Worried about son's circumcision

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here. I hope this ends the conversation on whether there are medical benefits to circumcision. THERE ARE:

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, and they leave the final decision to the parents.

BENEFITS:
Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it simpler to wash the penis.
Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The overall risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections are more common in uncircumcised males. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later on.
Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Circumcised men might have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Still, safe sexual practices remain essential.
Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can lead to inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis.
Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it's less common in circumcised men. In addition, cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/basics/why-its-done/prc-20013585

thanks for posting this, end of discussion here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Not at 3, 7, 9 years old, etc. to fix a bike accident facial scar. Or not to remove a large birthmark. It is an identical analogy and ridiculous to say you wouldn't do any non-required appearance altering painful procedure. Of course you might."

These are things that will affect a child's confidence and emotional well-being.

Having an intact penis should not affect those things.

If that is the culture, let's change it.

MAY affect..a birthmark, scar or an intact penis (in locker rooms, athletic events, etc.) may all affect a child's confidence and emotional well being. Many disfigured people say they wouldn't give up their disfigurement for anything, because it is who they are. Identical analogy: elective, painful, can be put off until the child can make the choice, has risks, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
thanks for posting this, end of discussion here.

Cute that you quote the opinion of one medical organization and leave out the others, stating your source as scientific proof of the bolded when other sources disagree. You are clearly not a scientist. Have you read any critiques of this policy?
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/796.full.pdf


Australia:
"After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand."
Circumcision of Male Infants. Sydney: Royal Australasian College of Physicians, 2010.

Canada:
The CPS recommends that "Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely (i.e.,in the absence of medical indication) performed."
Fetus and Newborn Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society. Neonatal circumcision revisited. (CPS) Canadian Medical Association Journal


And frankly, the line about it making it simpler to wash the penis is ridiculous and shows ignorance, perhaps excluding an elderly population. Many parents who have washed a circumcised boy know about the difficulty that can accompany adhesions and the care needed to prevent them with the way circumcisions are done now, to leave more skin for the boy's growth as he ages. An uncircumcised penis is washed like a finger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
thanks for posting this, end of discussion here.

Cute that you quote the opinion of one medical organization and leave out the others, stating your source as scientific proof of the bolded when other sources disagree. You are clearly not a scientist. Have you read any critiques of this policy?
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/796.full.pdf


Australia:
"After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand."
Circumcision of Male Infants. Sydney: Royal Australasian College of Physicians, 2010.

Canada:
The CPS recommends that "Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely (i.e.,in the absence of medical indication) performed."
Fetus and Newborn Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society. Neonatal circumcision revisited. (CPS) Canadian Medical Association Journal


And frankly, the line about it making it simpler to wash the penis is ridiculous and shows ignorance, perhaps excluding an elderly population. Many parents who have washed a circumcised boy know about the difficulty that can accompany adhesions and the care needed to prevent them with the way circumcisions are done now, to leave more skin for the boy's growth as he ages. An uncircumcised penis is washed like a finger.

I thought the same thing. For a panel of physicians to conclude, "Let's cut off a body part so that washing is easier" is flabbergasting. It would be far more appropriate for physicians to emphasize education before surgery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Not at 3, 7, 9 years old, etc. to fix a bike accident facial scar. Or not to remove a large birthmark. It is an identical analogy and ridiculous to say you wouldn't do any non-required appearance altering painful procedure. Of course you might."

These are things that will affect a child's confidence and emotional well-being.

Having an intact penis should not affect those things.

If that is the culture, let's change it.

Uh, culture doesn't change confidence and emotional well being AND you can't change "culture" in a snap of a finger. The point is that having an intact penis can certainly affect a child's emotional well being. So if one reason I picked to circ is for my son's emotional well being (and you wouldn't)...and if you would have decided to fix a facial scar/birthmark removal for your kid's emotional well being (and perhaps I wouldn't), are we not of a mindset that is similar? Neither is required, both have risks, both are figure altering, both are painful, both could wait for the kid to decide as an adult to do, etc?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except her boyfriend steamrolled her and made the decision himself.

Inaccurate paraphrasing. Accurate quote: "My boyfriend would be pissed if I did that, I let him make this decision, but I was on the fence about it after the doctor said he wouldn't use pain relief. My boyfriend still wants it done though."

Ummm nope. That's what she claimed when she didn't get the answers she wanted. Initially she said it was his choice and he would be mad if she went against him. Also your quote - but he would be MAD! - just proves my point.

Does it affect me? Nope. Just addressing PP who says everyone should shut up because it was ONLY MOMS CHOICE. OP could have not asked here and never heard a word.

Him being mad isn't bulldozing her NOR is it inappropriate. If you had a situation with your husband that was similar, I'm sure you'd be mad, too. For example, if you and your husband spoke and disagreed on an issue (to have plastic surgery to lesson a facial scar, bracesn teeth, going on Ritalin, etc.) and your husband said, it was your choice and then right before you implemented your choice, you told him you changed your mind, wouldn't you be mad, too?

Apples and oranges. Her husband was gung-ho from the start so she felt she had to agree by her own explanation even though she was unsure. THAT is the unhealthy BS. Can't relate to your "example" because I would never marry someone who would support unnecessary surgery in a newborn, and facial surgery to fix a scar is totally different than circumcision. Sorry you believe the Man Is The Master BS.

That's not what she said initially. (I haven't read every post so if she changed her story, then I don't know about it.) She said she initially let him make the decision and only after he did was on the fence. "...I let him make this decision, but I was on the fence about it after the doctor said he wouldn't use pain relief." Talk about apples and oranges. Where did I say the man is the master? I said if a somewhat big decision needed to be made and my husband said it was completely up to me (or I told my husband that it was completely up to him) and thereafter he (or I) changed his/my mind, he (or I) would be annoyed.

You would not marry someone who is pro circumcision? Presumably you didn't discuss that before falling in love...so you'd call a relationship off
...

Facial surgery (plastic surgery) is elective, results in death far more than circumcisions, requires general anesthesia typically, and has many more complications (puckering of the skin, discoloration, etc.). It is not a dissimilar analogy, except plastic surgery is a more serious decision.

The difference is that plastic surgery is a decision you make for yourself.

Not at 3, 7, 9 years old, etc. to fix a bike accident facial scar. Or not to remove a large birthmark. It is an identical analogy and ridiculous to say you wouldn't do any non-required appearance altering painful procedure. Of course you might.

Therapeutic interventions of any kind remain a terrible analogy. The natural penis is not a birth defect or result of an accident. There is no good reason to "fix" it. The analogy to removing scars is especially ironic, given that circumcision produces them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except her boyfriend steamrolled her and made the decision himself.

Inaccurate paraphrasing. Accurate quote: "My boyfriend would be pissed if I did that, I let him make this decision, but I was on the fence about it after the doctor said he wouldn't use pain relief. My boyfriend still wants it done though."

Ummm nope. That's what she claimed when she didn't get the answers she wanted. Initially she said it was his choice and he would be mad if she went against him. Also your quote - but he would be MAD! - just proves my point.

Does it affect me? Nope. Just addressing PP who says everyone should shut up because it was ONLY MOMS CHOICE. OP could have not asked here and never heard a word.

Him being mad isn't bulldozing her NOR is it inappropriate. If you had a situation with your husband that was similar, I'm sure you'd be mad, too. For example, if you and your husband spoke and disagreed on an issue (to have plastic surgery to lesson a facial scar, bracesn teeth, going on Ritalin, etc.) and your husband said, it was your choice and then right before you implemented your choice, you told him you changed your mind, wouldn't you be mad, too?

Apples and oranges. Her husband was gung-ho from the start so she felt she had to agree by her own explanation even though she was unsure. THAT is the unhealthy BS. Can't relate to your "example" because I would never marry someone who would support unnecessary surgery in a newborn, and facial surgery to fix a scar is totally different than circumcision. Sorry you believe the Man Is The Master BS.

That's not what she said initially. (I haven't read every post so if she changed her story, then I don't know about it.) She said she initially let him make the decision and only after he did was on the fence. "...I let him make this decision, but I was on the fence about it after the doctor said he wouldn't use pain relief." Talk about apples and oranges. Where did I say the man is the master? I said if a somewhat big decision needed to be made and my husband said it was completely up to me (or I told my husband that it was completely up to him) and thereafter he (or I) changed his/my mind, he (or I) would be annoyed.

You would not marry someone who is pro circumcision? Presumably you didn't discuss that before falling in love...so you'd call a relationship off
...

Facial surgery (plastic surgery) is elective, results in death far more than circumcisions, requires general anesthesia typically, and has many more complications (puckering of the skin, discoloration, etc.). It is not a dissimilar analogy, except plastic surgery is a more serious decision.

The difference is that plastic surgery is a decision you make for yourself.

Not at 3, 7, 9 years old, etc. to fix a bike accident facial scar. Or not to remove a large birthmark. It is an identical analogy and ridiculous to say you wouldn't do any non-required appearance altering painful procedure. Of course you might.

Therapeutic interventions of any kind remain a terrible analogy. The natural penis is not a birth defect or result of an accident. There is no good reason to "fix" it. The analogy to removing scars is especially ironic, given that circumcision produces them.

Yes let's go natural, forgo vaccines and any medical oxides
Procedures, good logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here. I hope this ends the conversation on whether there are medical benefits to circumcision. THERE ARE:

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, and they leave the final decision to the parents.

BENEFITS:
Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it simpler to wash the penis.
Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The overall risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections are more common in uncircumcised males. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later on.
Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Circumcised men might have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Still, safe sexual practices remain essential.
Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can lead to inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis.
Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it's less common in circumcised men. In addition, cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/basics/why-its-done/prc-20013585

thanks for posting this, end of discussion here.

You need to read the AAP's whole statement:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/585.full

The crucial quote is this:

"Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns."

Not even AAP recommends it as a routine procedure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except her boyfriend steamrolled her and made the decision himself.

Inaccurate paraphrasing. Accurate quote: "My boyfriend would be pissed if I did that, I let him make this decision, but I was on the fence about it after the doctor said he wouldn't use pain relief. My boyfriend still wants it done though."

Ummm nope. That's what she claimed when she didn't get the answers she wanted. Initially she said it was his choice and he would be mad if she went against him. Also your quote - but he would be MAD! - just proves my point.

Does it affect me? Nope. Just addressing PP who says everyone should shut up because it was ONLY MOMS CHOICE. OP could have not asked here and never heard a word.

Him being mad isn't bulldozing her NOR is it inappropriate. If you had a situation with your husband that was similar, I'm sure you'd be mad, too. For example, if you and your husband spoke and disagreed on an issue (to have plastic surgery to lesson a facial scar, bracesn teeth, going on Ritalin, etc.) and your husband said, it was your choice and then right before you implemented your choice, you told him you changed your mind, wouldn't you be mad, too?

Apples and oranges. Her husband was gung-ho from the start so she felt she had to agree by her own explanation even though she was unsure. THAT is the unhealthy BS. Can't relate to your "example" because I would never marry someone who would support unnecessary surgery in a newborn, and facial surgery to fix a scar is totally different than circumcision. Sorry you believe the Man Is The Master BS.

That's not what she said initially. (I haven't read every post so if she changed her story, then I don't know about it.) She said she initially let him make the decision and only after he did was on the fence. "...I let him make this decision, but I was on the fence about it after the doctor said he wouldn't use pain relief." Talk about apples and oranges. Where did I say the man is the master? I said if a somewhat big decision needed to be made and my husband said it was completely up to me (or I told my husband that it was completely up to him) and thereafter he (or I) changed his/my mind, he (or I) would be annoyed.

You would not marry someone who is pro circumcision? Presumably you didn't discuss that before falling in love...so you'd call a relationship off
...

Facial surgery (plastic surgery) is elective, results in death far more than circumcisions, requires general anesthesia typically, and has many more complications (puckering of the skin, discoloration, etc.). It is not a dissimilar analogy, except plastic surgery is a more serious decision.

The difference is that plastic surgery is a decision you make for yourself.

Not at 3, 7, 9 years old, etc. to fix a bike accident facial scar. Or not to remove a large birthmark. It is an identical analogy and ridiculous to say you wouldn't do any non-required appearance altering painful procedure. Of course you might.

Therapeutic interventions of any kind remain a terrible analogy. The natural penis is not a birth defect or result of an accident. There is no good reason to "fix" it. The analogy to removing scars is especially ironic, given that circumcision produces them.

Yes let's go natural, forgo vaccines and any medical oxides
Procedures, good logic.

You don't make the pro-circ side look better with such poorly argued statements. If you compare circumcision to vaccines, you clearly don't have a clue about the scientific evidence behind either. They aren't even in the same universe as far as their scientific support goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except her boyfriend steamrolled her and made the decision himself.

Inaccurate paraphrasing. Accurate quote: "My boyfriend would be pissed if I did that, I let him make this decision, but I was on the fence about it after the doctor said he wouldn't use pain relief. My boyfriend still wants it done though."

Ummm nope. That's what she claimed when she didn't get the answers she wanted. Initially she said it was his choice and he would be mad if she went against him. Also your quote - but he would be MAD! - just proves my point.

Does it affect me? Nope. Just addressing PP who says everyone should shut up because it was ONLY MOMS CHOICE. OP could have not asked here and never heard a word.

Him being mad isn't bulldozing her NOR is it inappropriate. If you had a situation with your husband that was similar, I'm sure you'd be mad, too. For example, if you and your husband spoke and disagreed on an issue (to have plastic surgery to lesson a facial scar, bracesn teeth, going on Ritalin, etc.) and your husband said, it was your choice and then right before you implemented your choice, you told him you changed your mind, wouldn't you be mad, too?

Apples and oranges. Her husband was gung-ho from the start so she felt she had to agree by her own explanation even though she was unsure. THAT is the unhealthy BS. Can't relate to your "example" because I would never marry someone who would support unnecessary surgery in a newborn, and facial surgery to fix a scar is totally different than circumcision. Sorry you believe the Man Is The Master BS.

That's not what she said initially. (I haven't read every post so if she changed her story, then I don't know about it.) She said she initially let him make the decision and only after he did was on the fence. "...I let him make this decision, but I was on the fence about it after the doctor said he wouldn't use pain relief." Talk about apples and oranges. Where did I say the man is the master? I said if a somewhat big decision needed to be made and my husband said it was completely up to me (or I told my husband that it was completely up to him) and thereafter he (or I) changed his/my mind, he (or I) would be annoyed.

You would not marry someone who is pro circumcision? Presumably you didn't discuss that before falling in love...so you'd call a relationship off
...

Facial surgery (plastic surgery) is elective, results in death far more than circumcisions, requires general anesthesia typically, and has many more complications (puckering of the skin, discoloration, etc.). It is not a dissimilar analogy, except plastic surgery is a more serious decision.

The difference is that plastic surgery is a decision you make for yourself.

Not at 3, 7, 9 years old, etc. to fix a bike accident facial scar. Or not to remove a large birthmark. It is an identical analogy and ridiculous to say you wouldn't do any non-required appearance altering painful procedure. Of course you might.

Therapeutic interventions of any kind remain a terrible analogy. The natural penis is not a birth defect or result of an accident. There is no good reason to "fix" it. The analogy to removing scars is especially ironic, given that circumcision produces them.

Yes let's go natural, forgo vaccines and any medical oxides
Procedures, good logic.

You don't make the pro-circ side look better with such poorly argued statements. If you compare circumcision to vaccines, you clearly don't have a clue about the scientific evidence behind either. They aren't even in the same universe as far as their scientific support goes.

Check mate mofo
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/hiv-aids/circumcision-and-vaccines-twins-separated-birth

[Anonymous]

More similarities exist between circumcision and vaccines than you might think. Just as vocal anti-vaccine groups exist, so do anti-circumcision groups. Both factions tend to be extremely passionate about their beliefs. The CDC has stirred up the anti-circumcision groups with its recent draft recommendations, which suggest that health care providers counsel parents and uncircumcised older males on the health benefits of the procedure. The CDC did, however, stop short of saying all babies should routinely be circumcised Some arguments against routine vaccinations and circumcision overlap: “forcing something on an infant who can't decide for himself,”. . . “it's only being done so doctors/vaccine companies can make money,” and . . . “it's not natural” are comments of both the “Anti” camps.

[Anonymous]

No one wants stinky cheesey anteater

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one wants stinky cheesey anteater

That's science!

[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:Except her boyfriend steamrolled her and made the decision himself.

Inaccurate paraphrasing. Accurate quote: "My boyfriend would be pissed if I did that, I let him make this decision, but I was on the fence about it after the doctor said he wouldn't use pain relief. My boyfriend still wants it done though."

Ummm nope. That's what she claimed when she didn't get the answers she wanted. Initially she said it was his choice and he would be mad if she went against him. Also your quote - but he would be MAD! - just proves my point.

Does it affect me? Nope. Just addressing PP who says everyone should shut up because it was ONLY MOMS CHOICE. OP could have not asked here and never heard a word.

Him being mad isn't bulldozing her NOR is it inappropriate. If you had a situation with your husband that was similar, I'm sure you'd be mad, too. For example, if you and your husband spoke and disagreed on an issue (to have plastic surgery to lesson a facial scar, bracesn teeth, going on Ritalin, etc.) and your husband said, it was your choice and then right before you implemented your choice, you told him you changed your mind, wouldn't you be mad, too?

Apples and oranges. Her husband was gung-ho from the start so she felt she had to agree by her own explanation even though she was unsure. THAT is the unhealthy BS. Can't relate to your "example" because I would never marry someone who would support unnecessary surgery in a newborn, and facial surgery to fix a scar is totally different than circumcision. Sorry you believe the Man Is The Master BS.

That's not what she said initially. (I haven't read every post so if she changed her story, then I don't know about it.) She said she initially let him make the decision and only after he did was on the fence. "...I let him make this decision, but I was on the fence about it after the doctor said he wouldn't use pain relief." Talk about apples and oranges. Where did I say the man is the master? I said if a somewhat big decision needed to be made and my husband said it was completely up to me (or I told my husband that it was completely up to him) and thereafter he (or I) changed his/my mind, he (or I) would be annoyed.

You would not marry someone who is pro circumcision? Presumably you didn't discuss that before falling in love...so you'd call a relationship off
...

Facial surgery (plastic surgery) is elective, results in death far more than circumcisions, requires general anesthesia typically, and has many more complications (puckering of the skin, discoloration, etc.). It is not a dissimilar analogy, except plastic surgery is a more serious decision.

The difference is that plastic surgery is a decision you make for yourself.

Not at 3, 7, 9 years old, etc. to fix a bike accident facial scar. Or not to remove a large birthmark. It is an identical analogy and ridiculous to say you wouldn't do any non-required appearance altering painful procedure. Of course you might.

Therapeutic interventions of any kind remain a terrible analogy. The natural penis is not a birth defect or result of an accident. There is no good reason to "fix" it. The analogy to removing scars is especially ironic, given that circumcision produces them.

Yes let's go natural, forgo vaccines and any medical oxides
Procedures, good logic.

You don't make the pro-circ side look better with such poorly argued statements. If you compare circumcision to vaccines, you clearly don't have a clue about the scientific evidence behind either. They aren't even in the same universe as far as their scientific support goes.

Check mate mofo
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/hiv-aids/circumcision-and-vaccines-twins-separated-birth

NP here. Nope, nope, nope, not even close. The disease prevention brought on by vaccines is of AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SCALE than any benefits of circumcision. How many lives have vaccines saved? How many lives have circumcision saved? What are the downsides of each? They are not comparable.

[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:Except her boyfriend steamrolled her and made the decision himself.

Inaccurate paraphrasing. Accurate quote: "My boyfriend would be pissed if I did that, I let him make this decision, but I was on the fence about it after the doctor said he wouldn't use pain relief. My boyfriend still wants it done though."

Ummm nope. That's what she claimed when she didn't get the answers she wanted. Initially she said it was his choice and he would be mad if she went against him. Also your quote - but he would be MAD! - just proves my point.

Does it affect me? Nope. Just addressing PP who says everyone should shut up because it was ONLY MOMS CHOICE. OP could have not asked here and never heard a word.

Him being mad isn't bulldozing her NOR is it inappropriate. If you had a situation with your husband that was similar, I'm sure you'd be mad, too. For example, if you and your husband spoke and disagreed on an issue (to have plastic surgery to lesson a facial scar, bracesn teeth, going on Ritalin, etc.) and your husband said, it was your choice and then right before you implemented your choice, you told him you changed your mind, wouldn't you be mad, too?

Apples and oranges. Her husband was gung-ho from the start so she felt she had to agree by her own explanation even though she was unsure. THAT is the unhealthy BS. Can't relate to your "example" because I would never marry someone who would support unnecessary surgery in a newborn, and facial surgery to fix a scar is totally different than circumcision. Sorry you believe the Man Is The Master BS.

That's not what she said initially. (I haven't read every post so if she changed her story, then I don't know about it.) She said she initially let him make the decision and only after he did was on the fence. "...I let him make this decision, but I was on the fence about it after the doctor said he wouldn't use pain relief." Talk about apples and oranges. Where did I say the man is the master? I said if a somewhat big decision needed to be made and my husband said it was completely up to me (or I told my husband that it was completely up to him) and thereafter he (or I) changed his/my mind, he (or I) would be annoyed.

You would not marry someone who is pro circumcision? Presumably you didn't discuss that before falling in love...so you'd call a relationship off
...

Facial surgery (plastic surgery) is elective, results in death far more than circumcisions, requires general anesthesia typically, and has many more complications (puckering of the skin, discoloration, etc.). It is not a dissimilar analogy, except plastic surgery is a more serious decision.

The difference is that plastic surgery is a decision you make for yourself.

Not at 3, 7, 9 years old, etc. to fix a bike accident facial scar. Or not to remove a large birthmark. It is an identical analogy and ridiculous to say you wouldn't do any non-required appearance altering painful procedure. Of course you might.

Therapeutic interventions of any kind remain a terrible analogy. The natural penis is not a birth defect or result of an accident. There is no good reason to "fix" it. The analogy to removing scars is especially ironic, given that circumcision produces them.

Yes let's go natural, forgo vaccines and any medical oxides
Procedures, good logic.

You don't make the pro-circ side look better with such poorly argued statements. If you compare circumcision to vaccines, you clearly don't have a clue about the scientific evidence behind either. They aren't even in the same universe as far as their scientific support goes.

Check mate mofo
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/hiv-aids/circumcision-and-vaccines-twins-separated-birth

NP here. Nope, nope, nope, not even close. The disease prevention brought on by vaccines is of AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SCALE than any benefits of circumcision. How many lives have vaccines saved? How many lives have circumcision saved? What are the downsides of each? They are not comparable.

"How many lives have circumcision saved? "

Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision
This one-time intervention reduces the risk that men will acquire the virus from women by more than 60%, which also benefits women by lowering the rate of infection among men. (PloS Med. 2005; 2e298 and Lancet. 2007; 369:634-656 and 657-666)
http://www.cdc.gov/globalaids/publications/cdc-global-hiv-update-2013.pdf

http://www.pepfar.gov/funding/results/