Bottom line, it is obvious that the vast majority of cut as infants ADULTS if you asked them are they pleased they were cut as infants, would say you betcha. So you might consider that retroactive consent. Yes it is a shame for the small minority that is unhappy about it. That isn't fair ... for them. For the majority, it's a blessing it was done at a time they have no memory about.

CMK No I am asking if you are for it or against it - Yes or No ?

You see this is where I have a problem. I said before that men on this forum who are circumcised are 100% in favor of circumcision and men who are not circumcised are 100% against circumcision.

And this is where I have a problem. I'm not circumcised and I'm not 100% against circumcision as I've said previously. I am against circumcision without informed consent.

Who in their right mind without grave medical reasons would consider circumcision of anyone but an infant? So you would never get informed consent. In fact you are 100% against it.

As I've just said that I'm not circumcised and I'm not against circumcision then I'm not 100% against it. Sorry - can't make it any simpler or more logical than that.

Bottom line, it is obvious that the vast majority of cut as infants ADULTS if you asked them are they pleased they were cut as infants, would say you betcha. So you might consider that retroactive consent. Yes it is a shame for the small minority that is unhappy about it. That isn't fair ... for them. For the majority, it's a blessing it was done at a time they have no memory about.

...would say you betcha

says WHO? has somebody interviewed the vast majority of mutilated males and wrote a paper?

You see this is where I have a problem. I said before that men on this forum who are circumcised are 100% in favor of circumcision and men who are not circumcised are 100% against circumcision.

And this is where I have a problem. I'm not circumcised and I'm not 100% against circumcision as I've said previously. I am against circumcision without informed consent.

Who in their right mind without grave medical reasons would consider circumcision of anyone but an infant? So you would never get informed consent. In fact you are 100% against it.

As I've just said that I'm not circumcised and I'm not against circumcision then I'm not 100% against it. Sorry - can't make it any simpler or more logical than that.

I'm for circumcision of infants except when the infant is opposed to circumcision for whatever reasons. So I hope I have made myself clear. I am not for circumcision when an infant is opposed. So please don't assume I am 100% in favor of circumcision because I am not and I think I have made that clear.

Edit to clarify. I realize there is little chance of an infant being able to give informed consent; about as much chance as a 16 year old wanting anyone to cut off his foreskin.....

Bottom line, it is obvious that the vast majority of cut as infants ADULTS if you asked them are they pleased they were cut as infants, would say you betcha. So you might consider that retroactive consent. Yes it is a shame for the small minority that is unhappy about it. That isn't fair ... for them. For the majority, it's a blessing it was done at a time they have no memory about.

...would say you betcha

says WHO? has somebody interviewed the vast majority of mutilated males and wrote a paper?

http://www.circinfo....ferences-3.html

3 or 4 hundred papers actually.

So it's ok to say "gawd, no, I wouldn't have it done myself but here, take this babies foreskin & call me a good parent". lol no thanks. I find the whole idea hypocritical.

If a grown man wouldn't chose it for himself then no one has the right to do it to a defenseless unknowing child. OF COURSE most cut men are going to say " nah it doesn't bother me", because they have no knowledge of the alternative. That chance to know was taken from them, their free choice was remove along with their foreskin. It is a travisty against men imo.

aren't most aristocratic familys terribly inbred? just sayin'

Not Jingthing and I. I don't think....

My neighbor converted to Islam to marry his wife and had a circumcision at the age of around 40.

I think my friends who have converted have been circumcised, though I am not sure of that.

It's not something that crops up much, so to speak, in conversation

I think it's pretty much one way traffic, though, I don't know anyone who was uncircumcised as an adult (again, to the best of my knowledge. Its not a subject I raise in casual conversation).

SC

Bottom line, it is obvious that the vast majority of cut as infants ADULTS if you asked them are they pleased they were cut as infants, would say you betcha. So you might consider that retroactive consent. Yes it is a shame for the small minority that is unhappy about it. That isn't fair ... for them. For the majority, it's a blessing it was done at a time they have no memory about.

...would say you betcha

says WHO? has somebody interviewed the vast majority of mutilated males and wrote a paper?

http://www.circinfo....ferences-3.html

3 or 4 hundred papers actually.

how many mutilated males were interviewed for those papers? the vast majority? gimme a break

http://www.circinfo....ferences-3.html

3 or 4 hundred papers actually.

how many mutilated males were interviewed for those papers? the vast majority? gimme a break

Are you using mutilated and circumcision as the same word? Or do you mean males who had a circumcision go wrong?

http://www.circinfo....ferences-3.html

3 or 4 hundred papers actually.

how many mutilated males were interviewed for those papers? the vast majority? gimme a break

Are you using mutilated and circumcision as the same word? Or do you mean males who had a circumcision go wrong?

I reckon he thinks all cut men are mutilated when most cut men actually are very happy with the aesthetics, hygiene, and cleanliness of what they have.

http://www.circinfo....ferences-3.html

3 or 4 hundred papers actually.

how many mutilated males were interviewed for those papers? the vast majority? gimme a break

Are you using mutilated and circumcision as the same word? Or do you mean males who had a circumcision go wrong?

I reckon he thinks all cut men are mutilated when most cut men actually are very happy with the aesthetics, hygiene, and cleanliness of what they have.

Because they know no better and have been brain washed, never being able to know what having an un mutilated foreskin is like. There is still NO medically proven/agreed reason for mass circumcision and that is a fact. There are cases where it is required for medical reasons and those I agree with.

If this is how it feels to be "brainwashed" then I don't want a dirty brain!

how many mutilated males were interviewed for those papers? the vast majority? gimme a break

Are you using mutilated and circumcision as the same word? Or do you mean males who had a circumcision go wrong?

I reckon he thinks all cut men are mutilated when most cut men actually are very happy with the aesthetics, hygiene, and cleanliness of what they have.

Because they know no better and have been brain washed, never being able to know what having an un mutilated foreskin is like. There is still NO medically proven/agreed reason for mass circumcision and that is a fact. There are cases where it is required for medical reasons and those I agree with.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have made statements recently indicating that their new policy will be to strongly encourage infant male circumcision in the USA. The American Urological Association (AUS) already has a positive circumcision policy. WHO, UNAIDS and other bodies have released statements favouring male circumcision in high-risk settings and have pointed out that infancy represents the optimum time for this to be done, notwithstanding the urgent need to circumcise men and adolescent boys. In 2010 a review by experts at John’s Hopkins University and the National Institutes of Health highlighted the long-standing benefits from infancy onwards, and provided an update on newer randomized controlled trial data concerning STIs [Tobian et al., 2010]. The article argued the case for neonatal circumcision and concluded that “with mounting evidence that male circumcision decreases viral STIs, genital ulcer disease, and penile inflammatory disorders in men, and bacterial vaginosis, T. vaginalis infection, and genital ulcer disease in their female partners, it is time for the AAP policy to fully reflect these current data”. This was supported by an editorial commentary in the same issue [brady, 2010]. The journal also published a new brochure intended for the parents of baby boys, listing the health benefits and which stated that risks of the procedure in infancy were very small [Moreno et al., 2010].

http://www.circinfo.net/circumcision_why_you_should_not_delay.html

As all can clearly see, this issue cuts both ways ...

Just curious JT, how many sons do you have?

I have said my piece and do not require a last word. When someone presents a UNIVERSALLY accepted report recommending circumcision as opposed to the UN favouring it, or a group of US surgeons who make a vast amount of money from performing circumcisions recommending it (heard the one about the insurance salesman who says you don't need insurance) then I will happily re consider my opinion, until then I bow out.

Just curious JT, how many sons do you have?

I asked that question a couple of hundred posts ago, but then apologised.

One thing I find curious about this whole discussion is that so many posters seem to think circumcision in infancy and circumcision as a teenager is directly comparable. Granted the eventual outcome is the same, isn't there a huge difference, physically and psychologically? Much more pain to a teenager and much more mental anguish. Maybe, like measles, it's better to get it over with. (on the presumption here that it is a 'good thing').

The nearest thing to compare it with (I know this sounds frivolous, but think about it) is the castration of baby pigs. This used to be done at, I think, about six weeks; the little pigs obviously felt a lot of pain, and mourned the loss of their jewels vocally for the next 24 hours. Now it's done shortly after birth; the piglets whimper a little, and then go straight back to the milk supply.

Just curious JT, how many sons do you have?

I asked that question a couple of hundred posts ago, but then apologised.

No need to apologize. No need to answer either.

I have said my piece and do not require a last word. When someone presents a UNIVERSALLY accepted report recommending circumcision as opposed to the UN favouring it, or a group of US surgeons who make a vast amount of money from performing circumcisions recommending it (heard the one about the insurance salesman who says you don't need insurance) then I will happily re consider my opinion, until then I bow out.

Nobody is saying it should be required of everyone. Just spread the actual objective information and the objective information says there are pros and cons of doing it and also that if you are going to do it ever, infancy is the ideal time for obvious reasons. The ethical issue of forcing it on babies is part of the cons, but certainly not enough to justify a universal ban considering the other objective pros.

Just curious JT, how many sons do you have?

I asked that question a couple of hundred posts ago, but then apologised.

No need to apologize. No need to answer either.

You sound as fanatical as the people who are trying to make circumcision illegal IMO. Same coin, different side.

And just as an FYI, I do think it is relevant since you are so busy lecturing parents on being brainwashed.

For the record, in case it is relevant, I have not been lecturing parents about being brainwashed. I think either choice of parents, cutting or not, is a valid reasonable choice for parents to make. I would never call EITHER choice vile.

Yes parents make all kinds of decisions for their children. Some wise, some not so wise.

We are all part of HUMAN FAMILY.

You do NOT have to be female to have an opinion about ABORTION.

You do NOT have to be a male to have an opinion about male circumcision.

You do NOT have to be a parent to have an opinion about public education policies.

And so on.

If you've got the opinion that parents ordering cutting infants obviously without consent is a horrible thing, fine, do your best to persuade people all you like. But you will never persuade everyone because bottom line there are excellent reasons to DO the circumcisions as well.

You sound as fanatical as the people who are trying to make circumcision illegal IMO. Same coin, different side.

I can assure you I am not fanatical about this. Fanatical would be to favor forcing everyone to get circumcised and forcing every parent to get their baby circumcised. That is not me by any stretch of the imagination! I think it is a matter of choice and yes that includes parents and I also think the best course is freedom of information to broadcast the different sides of it. I would favor laws mandating modern hygienic surgical methods are used for the procedures which would offend some super religious people, but there has to be a balance of freedom and protecting the health of infants.

I have said my piece and do not require a last word. When someone presents a UNIVERSALLY accepted report recommending circumcision as opposed to the UN favouring it, or a group of US surgeons who make a vast amount of money from performing circumcisions recommending it (heard the one about the insurance salesman who says you don't need insurance) then I will happily re consider my opinion, until then I bow out.

Nobody is saying it should be required of everyone. Just spread the actual objective information and the objective information says there are pros and cons of doing it and also that if you are going to do it ever, infancy is the ideal time for obvious reasons. The ethical issue of forcing it on babies is part of the cons, but certainly not enough to justify a universal ban considering the other objective pros.

What about infant immunisations? Is sticking pointy needles in people a mutilation? From the way they bawled, I don;t think my bairns gave consent

SC

Could we change the subject to something less confrontational - perhaps flowers.

Roses or thistles?

SC

It's infant circumcision that we are talking about. Informed consent implies a knowledge of having or not having circumcision. So it is not only; does the infant have the capability to consent to having the circumcision but also; does the infant have the capability to consent to not having the circumcision. See what I am saying here?

If the infant passes on the consent to not being circumcised on to the the parent then the infant must also pass on the consent to being circumcised to the parent.

In either case informed consent is given and should not be an issue.

It's infant circumcision that we are talking about. Informed consent implies a knowledge of having or not having circumcision. So it is not only; does the infant have the capability to consent to having the circumcision but also; does the infant have the capability to consent to not having the circumcision. See what I am saying here?

If the infant passes on the consent to not being circumcised on to the the parent then the infant must also pass on the consent to being circumcised to the parent.

In either case informed consent is given and should not be an issue.

Yes, I agree.