I actually think mostly it is done so that the boy is like Daddy. However, it is not abuse. It is an optional medical procedure.

In the case of religious circumcision, it most definately isn't optional for the child concerned. He never had a say in the matter.

Well, this is ONE thing Jews and Muslims are on the same page about.

All of these problems being mentioned are already extremely rare. Penile cancer being mentioned? I've never seen a case in 20 years!

AIDS and other STDS are not exteremely rare.

All of these problems being mentioned are already extremely rare. Penile cancer being mentioned? I've never seen a case in 20 years!

AIDS and other STDS are not exteremely rare.

Since a newborn is unlikely to be exposed to either the procedure could wait until he is of an age where HE could make the decision.

This is a bunch of intellectual masturbation. Circumcision isn't going anywhere and people with common sense can see it is not abuse, it is a CHOICE. It's like fashion. Right now it's decreasing in the U.S. and increasing in Africa.

All of these problems being mentioned are already extremely rare. Penile cancer being mentioned? I've never seen a case in 20 years!

AIDS and other STDS are not exteremely rare.

They are for those of us who take appropriate measures to protect ourselves from them.

it's funny but in countries where it is normal practice there is the same level of these so called "preventaive" diseases as in those where it isn't normal practice. and you talk about common sense. lol. common sense is NOT cutting off part of a babies penis.

Like several have mentioned before, allow the baby to grow up & then make the descision himself. Pretty sure most would not chose it but that's just my guess

anyone saying it is an optional procedure....wrong. the child has NO option.

Circumcision lessens the risk of urinary tract infection in the first year of life by up to 90 percent.

http://www.patient.co.uk/health/Urine-Infection-in-Children.htm

What is a urine infection?

A urine infection is caused by bacteria (germs) that get into the urine. Most urine infections are due to bacteria that normally live in your own bowel. They cause no harm in the bowel but can cause infection if they get into other parts of your body. Some bacteria lie around the back passage (anus) after passing a stool (faeces). These bacteria can sometimes travel to the urethra and into the bladder. Some bacteria thrive in urine and multiply quickly to cause infection.

The infection is commonly just in the bladder (when it is called cystitis), but may travel higher up to affect one or both kidneys as well.

Nearly 1 in 20 boys, and more than 1 in 10 girls, have at least one urine infection by the time they are 16 years old. Children aged under five years are the most commonly affected.

Does anything increase the risk of developing a urine infection?

In most cases

No. Most urine infections in children are just "one of those things" and there is no underlying problem to account for it.

To help to prevent a further infection in the future:

• Try not to let your child become constipated. A good diet will help here. Ask your doctor for advice on this if you are not sure as to what foods are best to prevent constipation.
  
• Make sure your child has plenty to drink each day.
  

One in 20 boys, so 90% of that is helped by cutting off foreskin,. not really odds that could convince me to cut my childs foreskin esp as nothing in this article or the several others I found mentions foreskin or circumsicion but each their own I suppose.

anyone saying it is an optional procedure....wrong. the child has NO option.

Of course. It is the parent's decision and as there are documented benefits of doing the procedure in infancy rather than later, it does make sense if you are going to do it, do it then. You know, if you don't like it, don't do it to your own baby. This crusader attitude won't wash.

To suggest that parents who order a circumcision for their infant are child abusers is inflammatory and wrong. That view is only for fringe extremists. Happily, that view remains in the minority in most of the world. Again, one thing is not the same as another thing.

careful now there jingthing, you're a pot calling a kettle black if you are talking about a crusade attitude.It isn't your place to try to "shut up" those who don't agree with you, either like it or not. But if not, tough, nothing you or anyone else try to justify it with will convince me that removing part of a childs body has any benefit, health or otherwise. I haven't done it to my son never will & i'm pretty sure, like his father, he will be happy for it.

My opinion on it being an abuse & no option for a baby will stand.

Fine. But don't push your morality on the entire world. I totally respect EITHER choice. I also find a hint of intolerance towards Jews and Muslims in this line of attack on circumcision. That's why I mentioned crusades.

Nonsense is all I have to say to both sides.

I had it done to me when I was an infant and have lived rather comfortably for nearly 75 years without feeling deprived or angry at my parents for their actions.

My bet would be that most circumcised men feel much the same way. It isn't something I dwell on nor have I ever considered my life lacking anything as a result of my parent's decision.

If you did not have it done as an infant, then take it upon yourselves to do it now or forget about it.

It's just one of those things. It's a special issue. Most males if it wasn't done as infant (except tribes where it is done later and required) would choose NOT to do it later. But the vast majority of males who had it done as an infant have ZERO issues with it being done, and some, like me, are happy it was done (and done as an infant). In my view, the two Abrahamic religions that do command this got this one right.

Should I have my ear lobes removed?

This whole debate reminds me of the paper/plastic bag choice in supermarkets. About every 20 years the "correct" answer changes, and anyone who disagrees with the popular opinion at the time is a terrible person.

I started this thread, and thought the whole thing was a storm in a teacup.... but I thought it might provoke a spot of discussion. I still think it's a storm in a teacup! But then I'm hardly ever PC.

Most males if it wasn't done as infant (except tribes where it is done later and required) would choose NOT to do it later.

And there you have it. When you are grown up and able to make your own choice, most wouldn't. But when you are a helpless infant it's ok for your parents to make a decision for you.

But the vast majority of males who had it done as an infant have ZERO issues with it being done,

Because what's the point, it's too late to moan about it. Your parents made a decision about your body parts and they took it away from you. I bet your glad you didn't have throat infection !!

Should I have my ear lobes removed?

The response is...Not if you need them for ear rings.

it's funny but in countries where it is normal practice there is the same level of these so called "preventaive" diseases as in those where it isn't normal practice.

Do you have a link to documentary evidence in an accredited medical journal of this claim?

I reckon these religions adopted the practice for similar reasons to avoiding certain meats before refrigeration.

Now we have antibiotics and generally better hygiene said religions should stop mutilating their children unnecessarily.

Fine. But don't push your morality on the entire world. I totally respect EITHER choice. I also find a hint of intolerance towards Jews and Muslims in this line of attack on circumcision. That's why I mentioned crusades.

so you "perceive" it to be a dig at muslims & jews even though I myself have made no mention of either religion. chip much? Get off YOUR high horse, it's a very lazy tact to throw the religion card out there but for me I don't care who is doing it or why, my issues is with the lack of choice or valid reason, if the procedure is needed on medical grounds then it is valid, just doing it cause it ",might" be an issue in future is stupid & arrogant.

I think it is wrong to do it as infants as they have no choice, should it be chosen later on it in life then that it their descision & one I have no issue with.

Now we have antibiotics and generally better hygiene said religions should stop mutilating their children unnecessarily.

Christianity does not practice circumcision as a rite. In the US - where most people are Christians - it is not usually not done for religious reasons. It is done for health reasons. There is real concern that antibiotics may not work in the future and antibiotics do not prevent AIDS. It should be up to the parents.

it's funny but in countries where it is normal practice there is the same level of these so called "preventaive" diseases as in those where it isn't normal practice.

Do you have a link to documentary evidence in an accredited medical journal of this claim?

no if you want some go look yourself but this site gives some interesting stats http://www.avert.org/uk-statistics.htm.

But lets see, the USA have a high level of std & aids where it is a normal practice to cut your boy children whereas in UK we have about the same precerntage of std & aids per capita & we generally dont cut.

Sexual education & safe sex practice prevents std & aids not cutting off your foreskin.

Can just imagine some guy going to his doctor, being told he has HIV & trying to sue his doctor cause he was circumsised. lol right!

Should I have my ear lobes removed?

The response is...Not if you need them for ear rings.

I can stick the earrings through my foreskin

SC

it's funny but in countries where it is normal practice there is the same level of these so called "preventaive" diseases as in those where it isn't normal practice.

Do you have a link to documentary evidence in an accredited medical journal of this claim?

no if you want some go look yourself

It sounds like you are just guessing. I prefer to rely on The American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical professionals who say that circumcision prevents a variety of diseases and is worthwhile for protecting children's health.

did you read the link provided which provides the stats for each country in the world in relation to HIV & AIDS? Clearly not.

As for you trusting the AAP, do you know "who" makes the descisions in USA on this & their personal interest in keeping male circumsision legal? Here is another link for you to not read that although quite extreme make some very valid points.

http://www.circumstitions.com/index.html

But regardless of what you or I believe, the removal of foreskin can be done at their request when the child reaches age & still be beneficial for the (claimed) prevention of these sexual diseases you are so focussed on. My opinion is still that doing it when a baby is unethical & an abuse of that babies rights.

I am with Boo. Pretty sure UG is buying the AMA line hook line and sinker. And we ALL know that the medical profession only advocates things out of the absolute verified health benefits of it all.

Like those damn pesky tonsils that it was a verified fact were totally unnecessary for many years. errr.

No, no kids and if I had one I wouldn't circumcise. I'd teach him to be clean. Not that difficult for normal men, really. I believe most of Europe and Japan is uncircumcised and they don't seem rife with AIDS and STDs.

sbk there is good hard evidence that circumcision does significantly reduce HIV transmission (female to male) in very high risk countries, for the most part: AFRICA. This is a complex issue. There is no right answer for everyone.

Also, these moves to make circumcision illegal ARE a threat to the religions of Judaism and Islam. I think its a good thing that there is at least this one area of agreement there.