Baby circumcision ‘grievous bodily harm’

[HapticSimian]

...you do only have one piece of useless skin left over which may or may not cause problems.

again, what are you losing because of your foreskin? what has been robbed from you that small benefits outweigh 2 painful days as a child?

I'm not going to join the multi-quoting marathon, but I wonder if you'll indulge me in having a look-see at this page? Yes, it's a biased website, but every point is individually referenced. Just mayhap it's a bit more than just a 'piece of useless skin'?

[eehellfire]

Relevance?

We are discussing baby circumcision. Hence no (or local) anesthetic.
As opposed to labiaplasty where there would be general.
Relevance of the comparison? There isn't a relevant comparison - which is my whole point

[STS]

The rest is just pointless back and forth so in the interests of keeping things short lets address this because it is here where the case of special pleading is most obvious:


It isn't about whether people in general take it. I want you to apply your logic consistently and admit that parents should have the right to have their kid's breast tissue removed too in order to prevent breast cancer in the future. This logic seems perfectly acceptable when we are discussing circumcision why won't you agree with it when it involves breast tissue? Show me the difference between these 2 cases.

fine, i'll apply it consistently:

Paget's disease is almost always a disease of older people. Although there is a form known as infantile Paget's, this is extremely rare and, as the name suggests, is usually detected in babies.

you have been missing this point constantly - circumcision is for the benefit of the child. the child. the child the child the child. not when he is an adult, not when he has a sex change or for the odds of reducing the odds of him getting aids or cancer, for when he is a child. let that sink in.

you may as well be asking a patient in a coma what he would like to do for his treatment on the coma. you cannot expect a child to understand the benefits or the procedure of having a circumcision

circumcision benefits the child through childhood, with hygiene and prevention of problems with the penis. if there was a childhood disease or issues with the nipples, i am sure there would be solutions and treatments for it. to remove something that normally only happens in adulthood is completely missing the point of what circumcision is supposed to do.

All the mentioned cancers would involve having to remove something that would result in your death and so are not a valid comparison. The breast cancer thing is however a nice comparison because it is as you say just useless stuff "left over which may or may not cause problems".

Again what are you losing because of your breast tissue?

Apply your logic consistently.

1.) you have conveniently skipped over me telling people what to do with their kids as you said that i do. please concede that point.
2.) please name some nipple diseases besides breast cancer.
3.) please name some nipple diseases that affect children that could be avoided by removing the nipples(breast tissue) which would be too late as an adult

you also neglected that i pointed out that a child's health is a parents responsibility, do you agree or do you disagree?

do you agree that there are absolutely no health benefits to a circumcised penis?

[STS]

I'm not going to join the multi-quoting marathon, but I wonder if you'll indulge me in having a look-see at this page? Yes, it's a biased website, but every point is individually referenced. Just mayhap it's a bit more than just a 'piece of useless skin'?

will look later

[eehellfire]

I'm not going to join the multi-quoting marathon, but I wonder if you'll indulge me in having a look-see at this page? Yes, it's a biased website, but every point is individually referenced. Just mayhap it's a bit more than just a 'piece of useless skin'?

GIF from your URL. Should 100% link to this in the funny gifs thread
http://www.circumstitions.com/Images/retrac-anim3.gif

[porchrat]

fine, i'll apply it consistently:

Paget's disease is almost always a disease of older people. Although there is a form known as infantile Paget's, this is extremely rare and, as the name suggests, is usually detected in babies.

you have been missing this point constantly - circumcision is for the benefit of the child. the child. the child the child the child. not when he is an adult, not when he has a sex change or for the odds of reducing the odds of him getting aids or cancer, for when he is a child. let that sink in.

you may as well be asking a patient in a coma what he would like to do for his treatment on the coma. you cannot expect a child to understand the benefits or the procedure of having a circumcision

circumcision benefits the child through childhood, with hygiene and prevention of problems with the penis. if there was a childhood disease or issues with the nipples, i am sure there would be solutions and treatments for it. to remove something that normally only happens in adulthood is completely missing the point of what circumcision is supposed to do.

You are putting the kid under the knife for a 5% chance of developing a condition (which could just as easily be treated when the condition arises and so isn't really a valid reason at all) and to reduce some infections in the first year of life. Pathetic.

1.) you have conveniently skipped over me telling people what to do with their kids as you said that i do. please concede that point.

I can't concede it because that would be lying. You are telling people what they can and cannot do with their kids. For example ff parents were attempting to skin their child alive you would step in and stop them, with physical force if necessary. So would I. So would most rational human beings. If that isn't telling people what they can and cannot do with their children then I don't know what is.

2.) please name some nipple diseases besides breast cancer.

Don't really have to.

3.) please name some nipple diseases that affect children that could be avoided by removing the nipples(breast tissue) which would be too late as an adult

Please name foreskin diseases that affect that affect children that could be avoided by removing the foreskin which would be too late to treat a few years later if and when they arise.

you also neglected that i pointed out that a child's health is a parents responsibility, do you agree or do you disagree?

Agree and disagree. If the parent is making a stupid decision (like when parents don't want the kid getting a blood transfusion) then the responsibility needs to be shifted to someone with a brain. In an emergency that would be the doctor in charge.

do you agree that there are absolutely no health benefits to a circumcised penis?

There are some minor potential hygiene issues for the first year of life, nothing critical. Beyond that there aren't really any health benefits to having a circumcision as a baby no.

[STS]

You are putting the kid under the knife for a 5% chance of developing a condition (which could just as easily be treated when the condition arises and so isn't really a valid reason at all) and to reduce some infections in the first year of life. Pathetic.

hygiene is unique to each people. for kids it's not a priority and parents have to help them. i have to scrub my sons penis to get all of the dirt out. with circumcision even at the age of 2 he could be doing this himself by simply playing with it in the bath because nothing would get trapped behind the foreskin. hygiene is a constant thing through life as well, again ideal world where nobody gets any infections and complications don't exist later in life because everybody can clean properly this can be banned.

I can't concede it because that would be lying. You are telling people what they can and cannot do with their kids. For example ff parents were attempting to skin their child alive you would step in and stop them, with physical force if necessary. So would I. So would most rational human beings. If that isn't telling people what they can and cannot do with their children then I don't know what is.

you're using an extreme example. i'd stop a person from skinning anyone or anything alive. you might as well say i'd condone killing pregnant women because i condone killing rapists and murderers. when it comes to abuse, i will step in, when it comes to medical, personal and financial choices, i leave that to other people. why would i step in during an abortion and prevent a women from getting it, and you wouldn't? likewise why would you step in and prevent a circumcision, and i wouldn't? these are our opinions and we may feel that each of these is wrong, but that is our opinion and these things are legal anyway. we have rights for a reason, rights to have freedom, our own choices, our own home, our own kids, etc etc.

how would you feel is abortion was banned completely in every country? you'd say that it is the woman's choice and that it is unfair. now understand why i say that i feel that circumcision should be the parents choice as the parents is put in charge of making medical decisions for the child. you may not agree with circumcision, but doctors do it and it has been shown to provide benefits, not matter how small the odds are to you. comparing circumcision to cancerous growths or facelifts is as childish as creationists asking why there are still monkies or why are there no turtles with wings.

Don't really have to.

would have been nice, i couldn't find many.

Please name foreskin diseases that affect that affect children that could be avoided by removing the foreskin which would be too late to treat a few years later if and when they arise.

Phimosis: This condition occurs when the foreskin cannot be retracted (pulled back) behind the head (glans) of the penis. This is called phimosis. It is usually a condition found in children and occasionally adults. Physiological phimosis is the normal condition that occurs mainly during the first year of life when the foreskin is not retractable in these young males. This may occur until about 3 years of age. This condition is not a congenital problem such as buried penis (the penis is located beneath the abdominal skin.
Paraphimosis: This condition, paraphimosis, is somewhat the opposite of phimosis. The foreskin, after being pulled back, becomes trapped and then swollen behind the head (glans) of the penis.
◦The swelling can lead to blockage of blood flow to the penis, which can lead to gangrene of the penile shaft and head distal to the welling.
◦Paraphiosis is considered a true medical emergency. Circumcision (surgical removal of the foreskin) at birth or revision of a prior circumcision can prevent this condition.
Balanitis: A common presentation in general practice, balanitis manifests quickly, often overnight in a previously well child. The penis may be tender, swollen and inflamed from the tip to the base of the penis. Rarely, redness extends onto the suprapubic area. Discharge may also be present. Swabs reveal a causative organism in about half of cases. Balanitis usually responds to an oral broad spectrum antibiotic. A severe episode causing urinary retention may require admission to hospital while repeated infections may warrant referral for circumcision.

then http://www.rch.org.au/clinicalguide/cpg.cfm?doc_id=5153

Agree and disagree. If the parent is making a stupid decision (like when parents don't want the kid getting a blood transfusion) then the responsibility needs to be shifted to someone with a brain. In an emergency that would be the doctor in charge.

circumcision is hardly a life or death situation unless it is botched or malpractice. we may as well compare having a wisdom tooth extracted to a stroke.

There are some minor potential hygiene issues for the first year of life, nothing critical. Beyond that there aren't really any health benefits to having a circumcision as a baby no.

you may have missed in this thread where people have mentioned getting circumcisions later in life over the age of 1. and it annoys me that i get told that i'm jealous now that i don't havea foreskin simply when i am defending a parents right to make a medical decision for their child. if i want my son to be under anaestic while they operate on him but anotehr poster comes on here and tells me thatl it's dangerous and that it should be avoided, and threatens to intervene if i do it, i would get annoyed. to me this is irrational, having a child you realise that some things will hurt your child but they are for the best in the end. that should be the parents right and thus the reason they are the parent.

edit: also, sorry if i am making you angry

[HapticSimian]

I don't think it's a matter of curtailing parents' rights to make decisions for their children, but rather showing that the specific course of action we're discussing is a poor one both physiologically and ethically. The fact that the option is available to parents at all is the problem.

[STS]

I don't think it's a matter of curtailing parents' rights to make decisions for their children, but rather showing that the specific course of action we're discussing is a poor one both physiologically and ethically. The fact that the option is available to parents at all is the problem.

i've been fighting mostly for the parents choice. i'm not a doctor, i don't know everything, but i am circumcised and i am fine, that is all i have to go on

[eehellfire]

Just a question:
Are those of you that are against parents choosing to circumcise their boys also against abortion?

[HapticSimian]

Just a question:
Are those of you that are against parents choosing to circumcise their boys also against abortion?

And the relevance of that would be, what... exactly?

[porchrat]

hygiene is unique to each people. for kids it's not a priority and parents have to help them. i have to scrub my sons penis to get all of the dirt out. with circumcision even at the age of 2 he could be doing this himself by simply playing with it in the bath because nothing would get trapped behind the foreskin. hygiene is a constant thing through life as well, again ideal world where nobody gets any infections and complications don't exist later in life because everybody can clean properly this can be banned.

I agree with you it can be banned.

you're using an extreme example.

You didn't state "I won't tell people what to do with their kids, except for extreme cases" so no actually I am not.

If that was what you meant that is what you should have said. Duh.

would have been nice, i couldn't find many.

Having more of them doesn't change the logic so it is really irrelevant.

Phimosis: This condition occurs when the foreskin cannot be retracted (pulled back) behind the head (glans) of the penis. This is called phimosis. It is usually a condition found in children and occasionally adults. Physiological phimosis is the normal condition that occurs mainly during the first year of life when the foreskin is not retractable in these young males. This may occur until about 3 years of age. This condition is not a congenital problem such as buried penis (the penis is located beneath the abdominal skin.
Paraphimosis: This condition, paraphimosis, is somewhat the opposite of phimosis. The foreskin, after being pulled back, becomes trapped and then swollen behind the head (glans) of the penis.
◦The swelling can lead to blockage of blood flow to the penis, which can lead to gangrene of the penile shaft and head distal to the welling.
◦Paraphiosis is considered a true medical emergency. Circumcision (surgical removal of the foreskin) at birth or revision of a prior circumcision can prevent this condition.
Balanitis: A common presentation in general practice, balanitis manifests quickly, often overnight in a previously well child. The penis may be tender, swollen and inflamed from the tip to the base of the penis. Rarely, redness extends onto the suprapubic area. Discharge may also be present. Swabs reveal a causative organism in about half of cases. Balanitis usually responds to an oral broad spectrum antibiotic. A severe episode causing urinary retention may require admission to hospital while repeated infections may warrant referral for circumcision.

Perhaps you missed this part?:
"Please name foreskin diseases that affect that affect children that could be avoided by removing the foreskin which would be too late to treat a few years later if and when they arise. "

I'm going to take that as a "no I can't name any" then.

Unfortunately this doesn't apply to cancer, it can indeed be "too late" as an adult.

circumcision is hardly a life or death situation unless it is botched or malpractice. we may as well compare having a wisdom tooth extracted to a stroke.

Which is why I don't think it is a decision to be left up to the parents. Duh.

Just showing you my reasoning behind why "parents have responsibility over a child's health" doesn't actually work when it isn't a life threatening situation. Otherwise, using that logic, you could perform plastic surgery or any other stupid thing parents' wanted you to do to their baby because after all they have responsibility over his health even when it is elective surgery.

you may have missed in this thread where people have mentioned getting circumcisions later in life over the age of 1.

If they get them to treat a valid condition then I don't have a problem with it. That is a parent looking out for his/her kid. I have never said that circumcisions cannot be a valid medical treatment. I'm just saying perform the treatment if the need for it arises when it arises.

and it annoys me that i get told that i'm jealous now that i don't havea foreskin simply when i am defending a parents right to make a medical decision for their child.

Never said it, irrelevant.

if i want my son to be under anaestic while they operate on him but anotehr poster comes on here and tells me thatl it's dangerous and that it should be avoided, and threatens to intervene if i do it, i would get annoyed.

So would I. However aneasthetic is a requirement for some operations and we all know why. Having aneasthetic is a rational decision because if you don't have it the operation you (or your child) are undergoing is going to be extremely risky if not impossible.

to me this is irrational, having a child you realise that some things will hurt your child but they are for the best in the end. that should be the parents right and thus the reason they are the parent.

No you just think it would be the best in the end. You don't know.

edit: also, sorry if i am making you angry

Not at all. I trimmed my post a few posts ago just because it was taking too long to respond and I had work to do

[eehellfire]

And the relevance of that would be, what... exactly?

Well if parent's aren't allowed to cut some skin off a penis, surely they can't decide to terminate a baby completely?

[STS]

going to trim your post a bit as i have work too

I agree with you it can be banned.

You didn't state "I won't tell people what to do with their kids, except for extreme cases" so no actually I am not.

i thought that were we specifically talking about how to raise a kid. so you agree that i cannot comment on how you raise your kid and the decisions you make for them? or ony when you want to skin them?

Having more of them doesn't change the logic so it is really irrelevant.

i was being sarcastic, when i said "much" i meant "any". i couldn't find anything besides breast cancer

Perhaps you missed this part?:
"Please name foreskin diseases that affect that affect children that could be avoided by removing the foreskin which would be too late to treat a few years later if and when they arise. "

I'm going to take that as a "no I can't name any" then.

that is not the same as:

3.) please name some nipple diseases that affect children that could be avoided by removing the nipples(breast tissue) which would be too late as an adult

in the context i meant diseases exclusively to kids as most urinary tract infections are. i'm still waiting for the nipple diseases which are prevalent in children

Which is why I don't think it is a decision to be left up to the parents. Duh.

the operation itself is not life or death, the things it could prevent could be, as some of them are considered "true medical emergnecies" if you read the link.

Just showing you my reasoning behind why "parents have responsibility over a child's health" doesn't actually work when it isn't a life threatening situation. Otherwise, using that logic, you could perform plastic surgery or any other stupid thing parents' wanted you to do to their baby because after all they have responsibility over his health even when it is elective surgery.

kids undergo all kinds of surgery, some kids have breathing problems which while it doesn't affect them in the way that could kill them, are better for them. this is the parents decision i feel. if there is a 1% chance of death due to a blunder, do we avoid treating the kid to improve their life?

If they get them to treat a valid condition then I don't have a problem with it. That is a parent looking out for his/her kid. I have never said that circumcisions cannot be a valid medical treatment. I'm just saying perform the treatment if the need for it arises when it arises.

i agree with you, but i just want to go further and saying doing it at birth prevents doing it later. it IS an extremely painful operation at any age and at an age where you don't get erections, move around a lot or know what is coming when you have a pee it just seems better. kids also heal faster as they grow up.

Never said it, irrelevant.

never said anything against it either doesn't mean you condone it but you have people arguing on your side with flawed arguments

[porchrat]

Well if parent's aren't allowed to cut some skin off a penis, surely they can't decide to terminate a baby completely?

You aren't allowed to terminate a baby. Only a foetus.

Terminating a baby is called murder.