Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not in any way trivializing female mutilation, but suggesting that you consider it in the same way as male mutilation.

Here's another article that I suggest you read in its entirety. I used to agree with you until I read up more and better understood the cultural background behind female circumcision and realized that it is very similar to cutting boys.

http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/06/circumcision-is-child-abuse-picture.html

Why exactly would I consider slicing off the labia and clitoris, often followed by sewing up the vaginal opening the same as removing a foreskin on a penis? Explain that to me. I'm not talking about the cultural background - at all. I'm talking about the severity of the procedure that you are trivializing.

Seriously, Google some images of circumcised girls and and then get back to me. Aside from the horror of seeing a mutilated vulva and the blood that goes with removing the flesh of the labia, you'll also note that FGM is typically performed on girls older than 5 (markedly different than male circumcision in most cultures). Study it - no not just reading a few anti male circumcision articles. But study FGM and then maybe you'll realize how A) insanely offensive the comparison is between male circumcision and FGM and B) how devastating FGM can be for a woman's health, never mind her sexuality (unlike male circumcision). There is NO comparison. Or, to put it another way, to say that there is similarities is to compare a cut to an amputation.

Again, please read this: http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/06/circumcision-is-child-abuse-picture.html I think you will find it enlightening. When you've read it I'd be very interested to hear your views.

Again, you fail to explain how exactly the two procedures compare beyond their cultural roots. Stop referring me to some blog and speak for yourself. I am very curious how you can legitimately compare the two in terms of the devastation and danger they present. You don't seem well informed about FGM and how dangerous and detrimental it is to women's health - it's not even comparable to male circumcision.

Anonymous wrote:

jindc wrote:...posting anti-practice web sites to prove your point doesn't prove your point. It's like quoting the CATO institute when you're trying to be non-paritsan on economics.
Find a reputable organization (AMA, ACOG, whatever) and quote that. Just like in college/grad school if you ever went and/or had to cite statistics to back up your argument(s).

Not PP but:

"Are there any health benefits associated with circumcision?
Circumcised infants appear to have less risk of urinary tract infections than uncircumcised infants. The risk of urinary tract infection in both groups is low. It may help prevent cancer of the penis, a rare condition.
Some research suggests that circumcision may decrease the risk of a man getting human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) from an infected female partner. It is possible that circumcision may decrease the risk of passing HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases from an infected man to a female partner. At the present time, there is not enough information to recommend routine newborn circumcision for health reasons.
Are there any risks associated with circumcision?
Possible complications include bleeding, infection, and scarring. In rare cases, too much of the foreskin or not enough foreskin is removed. More surgery sometimes is needed to correct these problems."

My own OB very strongly recommended we not do it. He sent me to this site, which is opposed to circ, but is strongly-evidence based. My OB is a member of the organization.

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/shortguide03-04.pdf

Anonymous wrote:I know that this is not exactly what you are getting at, butI am extremely bothered by all the negativity. It is intrusive and disrespectful while masquerading as a free-to-be-you-and-me mentality.

1. The people who say we are mutilating our children's genitals and use the term "intact" bother me immensely. My child is not incomplete in some way because he is circumcised. your kid is not circumcised, he is not "intact".

2. The people who say that we should leave the child to grow up and make his own decision. This makes no sense to me. What other decisions should we leave to our child? Is he allowed to hit his friends? Can he just stay awake all night watching movies? Decide what he wants to eat even if it is a 100% sugar diet? No! We are the parents. We decide things for our children all the time and yes a lot of them are permanent and last throughout their lives. We get to raise our children how we choose. that means we can discipline, form family traditions, celebrate holidays and circumcise our sons.

I have to ask those people who say we should let our children grow up and decide what religion to be if they force Christmas presents on their children before they are 18?

3. I did not dwell on the health benefits or the risks. We are Jewish and we had a bris and circumcised our son. I fully support parents making decisions for their children. And I expect everyone else to butt out.

Anonymous wrote:
I forgot my cite for the first quote with bolded risks / benefits, which was acog itself, since that's what you asked for.

http://www.acog.org/~/media/For%20Patients/faq039.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20130411T1533015256

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not in any way trivializing female mutilation, but suggesting that you consider it in the same way as male mutilation.

Here's another article that I suggest you read in its entirety. I used to agree with you until I read up more and better understood the cultural background behind female circumcision and realized that it is very similar to cutting boys.

http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/06/circumcision-is-child-abuse-picture.html

Why exactly would I consider slicing off the labia and clitoris, often followed by sewing up the vaginal opening the same as removing a foreskin on a penis? Explain that to me. I'm not talking about the cultural background - at all. I'm talking about the severity of the procedure that you are trivializing.

Seriously, Google some images of circumcised girls and and then get back to me. Aside from the horror of seeing a mutilated vulva and the blood that goes with removing the flesh of the labia, you'll also note that FGM is typically performed on girls older than 5 (markedly different than male circumcision in most cultures). Study it - no not just reading a few anti male circumcision articles. But study FGM and then maybe you'll realize how A) insanely offensive the comparison is between male circumcision and FGM and B) how devastating FGM can be for a woman's health, never mind her sexuality (unlike male circumcision). There is NO comparison. Or, to put it another way, to say that there is similarities is to compare a cut to an amputation.

Again, please read this: http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/06/circumcision-is-child-abuse-picture.html I think you will find it enlightening. When you've read it I'd be very interested to hear your views.

Again, you fail to explain how exactly the two procedures compare beyond their cultural roots. Stop referring me to some blog and speak for yourself. I am very curious how you can legitimately compare the two in terms of the devastation and danger they present. You don't seem well informed about FGM and how dangerous and detrimental it is to women's health - it's not even comparable to male circumcision.

Are you the Aids worker again? if so I'm sure you've heard the term "cultural competence"? You need to get your head out of the sand and start understanding some of the traditions of the populations that you claim to treat. If you truly understood the issue you would know that there is a huge range of ways in which FGM is performed. Please stop acting as if I am suggesting that it is a good thing. It is not. neither is cutting healthy tissue off an infant boy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that this is not exactly what you are getting at, butI am extremely bothered by all the negativity. It is intrusive and disrespectful while masquerading as a free-to-be-you-and-me mentality.

1. The people who say we are mutilating our children's genitals and use the term "intact" bother me immensely. My child is not incomplete in some way because he is circumcised. your kid is not circumcised, he is not "intact".

2. The people who say that we should leave the child to grow up and make his own decision. This makes no sense to me. What other decisions should we leave to our child? Is he allowed to hit his friends? Can he just stay awake all night watching movies? Decide what he wants to eat even if it is a 100% sugar diet? No! We are the parents. We decide things for our children all the time and yes a lot of them are permanent and last throughout their lives. We get to raise our children how we choose. that means we can discipline, form family traditions, celebrate holidays and circumcise our sons.

I have to ask those people who say we should let our children grow up and decide what religion to be if they force Christmas presents on their children before they are 18?

3. I did not dwell on the health benefits or the risks. We are Jewish and we had a bris and circumcised our son. I fully support parents making decisions for their children. And I expect everyone else to butt out.

Sorry, dictionary wanna be, but you don't get to police the language. My kid is intact. your kid is, by definition, not intact. You may use a euphemism if you like, but you can't force me to do the same so you feel better about what you did. And yes, I stand behind my belief that no parent should be forcing elective surgery on a newborn for cosmetic reasons or because their "god" tells them to. How ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:Let me state this again and state it clearly. Female circumcision is NOT ALWAYS about slicing off the clitoris. It is most commonly about cutting the clitoral hood, which is exactly the same as male circumcision and has exactly the same purpose as the foreskin. I am not minimizing it. I think it is a horrific tradition even in the more minimal form. However, I also believe that male circumcision is horrific. That is where we differ. You need to read up and understand the cultural background of them both and how female circumcision is COMMONLY performed in order to understand and that's why I suggest that you read that blog which I assume you haven't done. If you did read that or read thoroughly on the topic you would understand that there are vast differences in the way that female circumcision is performed AND that the justifications are commonly the same for boys or girls depending on which culture you are a part of.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that this is not exactly what you are getting at, butI am extremely bothered by all the negativity. It is intrusive and disrespectful while masquerading as a free-to-be-you-and-me mentality.

1. The people who say we are mutilating our children's genitals and use the term "intact" bother me immensely. My child is not incomplete in some way because he is circumcised. your kid is not circumcised, he is not "intact".

2. The people who say that we should leave the child to grow up and make his own decision. This makes no sense to me. What other decisions should we leave to our child? Is he allowed to hit his friends? Can he just stay awake all night watching movies? Decide what he wants to eat even if it is a 100% sugar diet? No! We are the parents. We decide things for our children all the time and yes a lot of them are permanent and last throughout their lives. We get to raise our children how we choose. that means we can discipline, form family traditions, celebrate holidays and circumcise our sons.

I have to ask those people who say we should let our children grow up and decide what religion to be if they force Christmas presents on their children before they are 18?

3. I did not dwell on the health benefits or the risks. We are Jewish and we had a bris and circumcised our son. I fully support parents making decisions for their children. And I expect everyone else to butt out.

Sorry, dictionary wanna be, but you don't get to police the language. My kid is intact. your kid is, by definition, not intact. You may use a euphemism if you like, but you can't force me to do the same so you feel better about what you did. And yes, I stand behind my belief that no parent should be forcing elective surgery on a newborn for cosmetic reasons or because their "god" tells them to. How ridiculous.

Here's the problem I have with the term "intact". It's not nice. Just say, your child is not circumcised. That's fine. The term intact is loaded with the implication of superiority. Are you teaching your child that circumcised children are incomplete? How will that play out in the school yard? Not well I imagine. What's funny is that circumcised children don't walk around talking about being circumcised. It's the people who didn't have their children circumcised that seem hell bent on finding out the situation in everyone's pants.

Anonymous wrote:This discussion is so amusing. I imagine most of us have circumcised husbands. Are any of them traumatized? Mine certainly isn't. The way some of you are describing it, you'd think they'd all be in professional therapy or support groups.

Anonymous wrote:This is a response from the forum about female circumcision that was referenced earlier in this thread...interesting...sounds familiar. Althought I'm sure many of you would never consider doing this to your girls.

"Re: Have you Sunat your girls?
Did sunat a week ago. Actually very mild. They basically removed about a third of your hood and leave the clitoris in tact. So basically your clitoris is exposed rather than covered by the hood. No pain and recovered in under a week.

Thanks for everyone for there help"