I have provided several links over the thread, if you have failed to read them & understand the words written plus the numerous sources of proof then that's your issue, not mine.

How about put it in YOUR words? How arrogant of you -- it is always others problem, never your problem so much so that you brag about your arrogance in your signature. What a power trip. Where does that come from? You charged these doctors with corruption and wishing to hurt babies. That is OUTRAGEOUS. Specifically, what hard evidence do you have? You say I can't take the heat. Look in the mirror. All you've got is prejudice and knee jerk intolerance on this issue.

No, I am not saying all babies should have this done. I am saying all parents deserve to hear some OBJECTIVE facts about the pros and cons of this medical procedure, including the ethical issues of lack of consent. and make up their own minds in FREEDOM, like any other OPTIONAL medical procedure for their children.

I wondered when someone would throw up this weak assed argument.

Shady conspiracy theories about respected medical organizations looking out for children's health are supposed to be credible arguments?

I wondered when someone would throw up this weak assed argument.

Conspiracy theories about respected medical organizations looking out for children's health are supposed to be credible arguments?

If its all you've got other than your blind intolerance of other parent's choices, you run with it I suppose.

My son in his 5 years has been to the dentist 4 times, never an issue, only needed a quick look his mouth, he has very good dental hygeine so no procedures needed, as his parents we ensure his teeth are well looked after, just as his foreskin is, with no issues in that department either.

So being chased around a chair at your first visit to a dentist proves nothing execpt you were a bit of a wuss.

I have provided several links over the thread, if you have failed to read them & understand the words written plus the numerous sources of proof then that's your issue, not mine.

How about put it in YOUR words? How arrogant of you -- it is always others problem, never your problem. Where does that come from? You charged these doctors with corruption and wishing to hurt babies. That is OUTRAGEOUS. Specifically, what hard evidence do you have? You say I can't take the heat. Look in the mirror. All you've got is prejudice on this issue.

now now, you are getting hysterical again.

I have put it in my words plus provided links to back up my position. How it is arrogance when I am providing information. You are the one who is claiming it to be a religious right & a parental right without a single acknowledgment of the childs rights. Look in yout own mirror & see hypocrisy looking back.

You have time & again thrown up these medical arguments, but they are tenuous at best. Sure in an adult male it may help slow down the transmission of sexual disease but as babies do not have sex, this can be done at maturity. I have stated again & again that I do not object to the practice in adults but do think it is wrong to be done to babies. You have claimed it is the best time to do it in infancy but who told you that, the baby? No, the AAP say so so it must be true!

I prefer to question & use my common sense. Better that a child is left in tact, perfect as they were made & let them decide to have this procedure at a time when they are in full possesion of the information avaiable. That is the fair & logical path.

I have provided several links over the thread, if you have failed to read them & understand the words written plus the numerous sources of proof then that's your issue, not mine.

How about put it in YOUR words? How arrogant of you -- it is always others problem, never your problem so much so that you brag about your arrogance in your signature. What a power trip. Where does that come from? You charged these doctors with corruption and wishing to hurt babies. That is OUTRAGEOUS. Specifically, what hard evidence do you have? You say I can't take the heat. Look in the mirror. All you've got is prejudice and knee jerk intolerance on this issue.

No, I am not saying all babies should have this done. I am saying all parents deserve to hear some OBJECTIVE facts about the pros and cons of this medical procedure, including the ethical issues of lack of consent. and make up their own minds in FREEDOM, like any other OPTIONAL medical procedure for their children.

OK. Let's ignore for a moment the question of whether it shoul be legal ornot, do you think its fair to chop bits off children's bodies when it doesn't offer significant short-term health benefits for people with a reasonable standard of personal hygiene and medical care?

I can see, in the future,when bactiera become resistant to antibiotics, we may have to start pemptively circumcising, and perhaps taking out tonsils and adenoids, and goodness knows what else. but as I understand, we have not reached that point yet. So is it fair to do things to our children that are irreversible and offer no significant health benefits in the interim period until they are old enough to form their own opinion on the topic?

SC

I wondered when someone would throw up this weak assed argument.

Conspiracy theories about respected medical organizations looking out for children's health are supposed to be credible arguments?

If its all you've got other than your blind intolerance of other parent's choices, you run with it I suppose.

Ahh so supporting a childs right to their own body makes me intolerant.

Not allowing other parents to make decisions about their children's health is what I object to.

I have provided several links over the thread, if you have failed to read them & understand the words written plus the numerous sources of proof then that's your issue, not mine.

How about put it in YOUR words? How arrogant of you -- it is always others problem, never your problem so much so that you brag about your arrogance in your signature. What a power trip. Where does that come from? You charged these doctors with corruption and wishing to hurt babies. That is OUTRAGEOUS. Specifically, what hard evidence do you have? You say I can't take the heat. Look in the mirror. All you've got is prejudice and knee jerk intolerance on this issue.

No, I am not saying all babies should have this done. I am saying all parents deserve to hear some OBJECTIVE facts about the pros and cons of this medical procedure, including the ethical issues of lack of consent. and make up their own minds in FREEDOM, like any other OPTIONAL medical procedure for their children.

OK. Let's ignore for a moment the question of whether it shoul be legal ornot, do you think its fair to chop bits off children's bodies when it doesn't offer significant short-term health benefits for people with a reasonable standard of personal hygiene and medical care?

I can see, in the future,when bactiera become resistant to antibiotics, we may have to start pemptively circumcising, and perhaps taking out tonsils and adenoids, and goodness knows what else. but as I understand, we have not reached that point yet. So is it fair to do things to our children that are irreversible and offer no significant health benefits in the interim period until they are old enough to form their own opinion on the topic?

SC

lol veyr funny to see Jingthings original post before he went & changed it.

Just wondering what other OPTIONAL medical proecudes parents make for their kids? I have a child & have yet to be gievn a choice of unnessecary medical procedures for him so just wondering in case I was missing out on something. lol

if i'd argue any case (like you did) my wife would conduct a thorough search of my study for illegal bottles of portwine.

Empty ones, presumably

SC

ladies and gentlemen... we have a winner!

Not allowing other parents to make decisions about their children's health is what I object to.

fair enough but where do we draw the line, plastic surgery on babies? maybe a parent doesn't like their kids nose or really wanted a kid with rounder eyes. what ethics stop doctors from performing these procedures? The right of the child usually plus the knowledge that it is morally wrong to perform unessecary surgery on a child & to wait until they reach age of consent.

lol veyr funny to see Jingthings original post before he went & changed it.

Just wondering what other OPTIONAL medical proecudes parents make for their kids? I have a child & have yet to be gievn a choice of unnessecary medical procedures for him so just wondering in case I was missing out on something. lol

There are many things in the world, dear, that are happening that you personally did not experience. Perhaps you think your personal experience with your children can be applied to the entire world but that is a flaw in your imagination and knowledge. In other words, as you would put it, your problem, your issue. It's funny when I make strong points you just get all personal and call me hysterical. Again, that's a shamelessly cheap power tripping tactic.

Anyway, yes I have a good example.

Relatives of mine had a MIDGET child.

They made the decision for him to go through YEARS of horribly painful medical procedures in order to gain 2 or 3 inches of height. This involved BREAKING HIS LEGS multiple times and pain in recovery that it is hard to imagine.

Many friends and relatives questioned the parents about this. Why are you torturing your child this way. But ultimately the decision of the parents had to be respected and of course there were legitimate doctors to support their decision. Right or wrong, they were clearly doing this in the best interest of their child.

The boy is now a young man. He is still a midget. But he did get the few extra inches.

To this day I don't know if they made the right decision or not. But it WAS their decision to make.

Not allowing other parents to make decisions about their children's health is what I object to.

fair enough but where do we draw the line, plastic surgery on babies? maybe a parent doesn't like their kids nose or really wanted a kid with rounder eyes. what ethics stop doctors from performing these procedures? The right of the child usually plus the knowledge that it is morally wrong to perform unessecary surgery on a child & to wait until they reach age of consent.

When I was little, one of my friends had ears that stuck out and everyone made fun of him. They called him Monkey Boy and he got beat up and laughed at every day . His parents had his ears pinned back when he was about 6 years old and the bullying stopped and he fit in well after that. Should his parents have waited until he was 21 and let him decide himself or made the decision for him?

We have presented all kinds of evidence that many medical professionals think that male circumcision is beneficial to a child and you have rejected it. That is fine, but other parents should be allowed to do what they think is right for their child.

Again, there is no problem at all with people advocating against infant circumcision. Freedom of information and opinion in free societies is a good thing. But there is a problem with laws restricting the rights of parents to make the free CHOICE for themselves. If the arguments against doing these medical procedures are so overwhelming, what exactly is the problem? If the only way you can stop people from making this choice is by BRUTE FORCE, then I submit that is a big problem. Clearly there are good arguments FOR the choice to do the procedure and yes in infancy.

Again, there is no problem at all with people advocating against infant circumcision. Freedom of information and opinion in free societies is a good thing. But there is a problem with laws restricting the rights of parents to make the free CHOICE for themselves. If the arguments against doing these medical procedures are so overwhelming, what exactly is the problem? If the only way you can stop people from making this choice is by BRUTE FORCE, then I submit that is a big problem. Clearly there are good arguments FOR the choice to do the procedure and yes in infancy.

But the question under debate is "Is it fair to circumcise newborn boys".

Presumably, UG's friend decided to have surgery to restore his distinctive ears when he grew older, or could have, if he chose.

Perhaps the small boy had expressed an opinion on his ears already. I can imagine a lot of parents would succumb to pressure from their child if he came home from school saying, "Mam, Mam, I want my knob nipped". But to do it as a squalling infant takes no account whatsoever of their wishes. Unlike their various jabs, there doesn't seem to be a significant short-term health benefit to circumcision before the victim can express an opinion.

SC

Patient. Not victim. Parents are authorized to make reasonable medical decisions for their children. Period. The controversy here is whether infant circumcision is reasonable. Some think so. Some don't. So given there are two strong sides, allowing CHOICE for the parents is the only ethical way to go with this social issue.

As said before. Different things are different things.

Female genital mutilation is NOT reasonable and should be illegal. There are no strong rational reasons for the benefits of that to counter the strong arguments against it.

With male circumcision there are strong PRO arguments.

I wasn't looking for this... but here it is! What the decline in infant circumcision costs in medical care in the US.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/health/view/1221218/1/.html

I wasn't looking for this... but here it is! What the decline in infant circumcision costs in medical care in the US.

http://www.channelne...1221218/1/.html

That's a great link but this decision shouldn't be made so much on cost factors. I would like to see that information widely known by groups that do not do circumcisions so they can know more about why they should at least CONSIDER doing this medically beneficial procedure. But I wouldn't support force or power tripping INTIMIDATION (through laws or economic incentives) on parents on their decisions either way. Personally, I am consistently PRO CHOICE.

Regarding the ethical issue of the lack of consent for infants getting circumcised, we have to look at the basics of human nature. Assuming that there are LIFETIME medical benefits to this medical procedure, we all know by simple common sense that if it is not done at infancy it probably will never be done at all in life. Yet there is a strong case that it is a good thing to do. So really it's usually a case of do it at that time or it will not be done. Is it a case of controversial medical ethics? Yes, but it hardly unique and ultimately decisions need to be made, and for parents who say yes, they deserve support as much as parents who say no.

Jing

WHEN you have a child then come back and comment..............

Jing

WHEN you have a child then come back and comment..............

No need. If I was going to have a child, which I'm not, I have no doubt if it was a boy, I would authorize a circumcision in a hospital setting. Otherwise, what is your point? Gay and childless people aren't allowed to have opinions about human family issues? If not, what was your point?

That was an unfair shot but I believe your playing of the race/religion card was also wrong. I am also Gay, but also an atheist, that is my view and I would not impose it on any infant so why should you??

i'm pretty sure that groups & individuals who don't circumcise already understand that cutting a perfectly good working body part from an infant is wrong & that is why they don't do it. the issue is educating those that do to understand that basic human rights of the child take precedent.

As for the religious aspect, there are alot of things religions used to support they no longer do, this is because times change & people become more educated.

lol veyr funny to see Jingthings original post before he went & changed it.

Just wondering what other OPTIONAL medical proecudes parents make for their kids? I have a child & have yet to be gievn a choice of unnessecary medical procedures for him so just wondering in case I was missing out on something. lol

There are many things in the world, dear, that are happening that you personally did not experience. Perhaps you think your personal experience with your children can be applied to the entire world but that is a flaw in your imagination and knowledge. In other words, as you would put it, your problem, your issue. It's funny when I make strong points you just get all personal and call me hysterical. Again, that's a shamelessly cheap power tripping tactic.

I used my son as an example in reply to your claim that you ran around the dentist chair for a simple visit tt he dentist. If you don't want anecdotal examples then don't introduce them. m'kay. and you are being hysterical, your posts are the equivelant of a victorian harpy waving a hankie at a woman shamelessly showing her ankles. If you don't want to be referred to as hysterical then try to express yourself in a less hysterical way. And back on the power tripping thing huh? You really have a weak argument if you are trying to throw this one up again. I'll say it simply.,,,Grow up.

Anyway, yes I have a good example.

Relatives of mine had a MIDGET child.

They made the decision for him to go through YEARS of horribly painful medical procedures in order to gain 2 or 3 inches of height. This involved BREAKING HIS LEGS multiple times and pain in recovery that it is hard to imagine.

Many friends and relatives questioned the parents about this. Why are you torturing your child this way. But ultimately the decision of the parents had to be respected and of course there were legitimate doctors to support their decision. Right or wrong, they were clearly doing this in the best interest of their child.

The boy is now a young man. He is still a midget. But he did get the few extra inches.

To this day I don't know if they made the right decision or not. But it WAS their decision to make.

oh no a MIDGET. what was the point of the capitalisation btw, was it intended to shock or was it just more hysteria?

I have an opinion on the people who did this to their child, you wont like it so I wont give it but it is hardly a voluntary procedure, they were attemtping to give someting to their child that they presumably thought might improve his quality of life. an extra inch or two of height so not really a good comparison to removing a perfectly functioning body part.

If you want to call a bit of skin a "body part." Maybe we should forbid parents from cutting children's toenails and fingernails too.

If you want to call a bit of skin a "body part." Maybe we should forbid parents from cutting children's toenails and fingernails too.

I would agree that for a red neck there is surplus skin between the neck and scalp that may benefit from removal to prevent pre adolescence ignorance.

I didn't realise that cutting nails caused bleeding & distressing pain? One has to wonder how you are doing it.

How many kids 13-14 years old have the maturity to make such a decision?

Do you know anybody that is unhappy they were circumcised as a baby?

In my nearly 75 years I have never met anybody complaining about it. YMMV.

Not much point in complaining is there?

Have to say I'm surprised in America that no-one has sued their parents yet, for doing this mutilation without their permission.

In a land where people get sued for not disclosing coffee is hot, it's only a matter of time....

not sure how I can say this any more simply. For me, both are an abuse. This is an issue beyond sexual pleasure. it is about removing, for no good reason, a part of a childs sexual organ.

The problem is that there is a good reason.

It help to prevent disease. Circumcision lessens the risk of urinary tract infection in the first year of life by up to 90 percent. Circumcised males are far less likely to get infected with a long list of sexually transmitted diseases. It drops the risk of heterosexual HIV acquisition by about 60 percent. It drops the risk of human papillomavirus herpes virus and other infectious genital ulcers. It also reduces the chances that men will spread HPV to their wives and girlfriends, protecting them from getting cervical cancer.

Most circumcision these days is not done for religious reasons. It is done because of the health benefits.

Do you have a link to documentary evidence in an accredited medical journal that mutilation of a child in this way has significant health benefits over and above those of simply keeping Peter clean?

For me there are a lot of "maybe"s and "may"s in there for the benefits. Most people will also not suffer from the diseases it may reduce, so definitely a moot point.

My view is that most parts of the body have evolved and are there for a reason.

Or for the religiously minded, if we didn't need a foreskin then god wouldn't have given us one in the first place. Ok some believe that their god has given them one specifically so they can cut it off again to show their dedication and devotion, but there have to have been better ways of even doing that.

I also find it interesting that people quote HIV, HPV etc. These weren't around a few thousand years back. Now doesn't that mean there's a good chance another disease or two may pop up in the next millenium or so where being unmutilated is the better option.

Medical opinions are at a point in time. There are massive gaps in understanding how the body functions, curing diseases and science generally. There's a good chance that in the future people will discover more links as to why man evolved this way.

You can't use ears and teeth as an example of elected surgery unless it can be shown that the foreskin is defective in all cases.

You can't use ears and teeth as an example of elected surgery unless it can be shown that the foreskin is defective in all cases.

How many kids 13-14 years old have the maturity to make such a decision?

Do you know anybody that is unhappy they were circumcised as a baby?

In my nearly 75 years I have never met anybody complaining about it. YMMV.

Not much point in complaining is there?

Have to say I'm surprised in America that no-one has sued their parents yet, for doing this mutilation without their permission.

In a land where people get sued for not disclosing coffee is hot, it's only a matter of time....

I assume it's already been done but here is a similar case:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/16/dean-cochrun-sues-hospita_n_1429588.html?ref=weird-news