The American Academy of Pediatrics just published a policy statement that states that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. Do you still think it's child abuse?

While I feel for the infants discomfort, I do not consider it child abuse.
Different choices for different families and cultures. We could argue that spaying and neutering pets is a physically abusive procedure as well, even though the benefits outweigh the surgery, as is true for the circumcision procedure IMO.

I never thought that it was. I still think it’s wrong for the state to be interfering on this largely-religious issue, what with SOCAS and all.
Kudos to the AAP, tho. There are far too many people gunning for our religious liberties.

I had my son circumcised in a country where it was NOT popular, and not routinely done. I insisted and had to hire a surgeon to do it. My baby was strapped to a body board, screaming. I am not sorry and he, as a young adult is not sorry. I have been with uncircumcised men and it was gross just saying.

I’ll admit that my perspective on the matter is limited, but I have noticed no quality-of-life issues stemming from my own procedure. And it’s something of a relief to know that I have better chances of avoiding zipper accidents.

I never considered it child abuse.

Why does it only apply to America? Why not other countries where it’s not done routinely? If they did similar studies in countries where they don’t have to defend routine infant circumcision, would they come to the same conclusion?

But I’m not against circumcision because I think it’s risky, I’m against it because I think it’s completely unnecessary in most cases and I would only support it in cases of medical necessity like phimosis or in places with AIDS infestations where it really does help to reduce the risk of AIDS. I just think people come up with justifications after the fact and wouldn’t have come up with it in the first place if not for the religious origin of it.

It is a permanent physical alteration of the body against and without the consent of the victim.
That is the main point. It violates not only the baby’s right to physical integrity, but also, while we are at the “religious freedom” issue, the baby’s religious freedom to choose if it wants to have this done for religious reasons.

I mean, if female circumcision reduced HIV transmission, would you advocate for that as well?

Having only had a daughter I never had to make that decision but were I to have a son now I would not have him circumcised, I don’t consider it child abuse though.

It’s only abusive if the patient actually remembers the event and how horrifying it was.~ Can anyone only a few hours/days old really have memories of this? Even if someone were to say they did all they would get out of me would be an uh huh. I watched my own son have it done and really it was over before I realized it had begun. We had a great doc. Babies cry before, during, after…all the ficken time. Never, not one time,(since 1987) has he approached us, his parents, asking Whyd ya do it…WHYYYYYYYY?

I just saw this on LiveScience:
http://www.livescience.com/22685-circumcision-facts.html

=> I didn’t know that “The foreskin also contains a large number of Langerhans cells, a type of immune cell targeted by HIV infection.”

And there is always the consideration that the incidence of cancer is higher in women who couple with uncircumcised males. Not to mention the less dangerous but very annoying to women, yeast infections etc.

I don’t think it is any business of the state. Let the state instead worry about the children who are truly being abused.

If it is considered child abuse than so too should be the dentist.

Yes, It is. Just because you can do a thing, does not mean you should do that thing.

@digitalimpression , and the the piercing of ears, which I had done as a baby, and my daughter, too. (screaming as well).

There’s a significant amount of evidence that female genital mutilation reduces sexual transmitted diseases so all you guys who think circumcision is OK to reduce the risk disease should probably start hacking your little girls apart as well.

I don’t consider it child abuse when it’s done on a baby. Some African tribes don’t do the procedure until the boy is a young teenager. It’s part of their religious rites. Is that abuse? Girls, too, may have a similar operation, for the same reason. I have a harder time with that.

What about vaccinations? I am sure more little kids are traumatized by getting shots than for circumcisions done at birth. The dentist is a good point as well. Holding down screaming children and giving them drugs to make them cooperate. What about all the kids in the school system that have no interest in, or propensity for team sports but are forced to participate in as mandatory physical education requires. The list of potential “abuse” is freaking endless, but somehow we all survive these things.

They are hardly the first organization to claim there are benefits, and they present no new information other than the same false BS already fed to us.

Yes I most definitely still consider it child abuse, and entirely unnecessary in the developed world.

Of course, this is really a power struggle between people and the State over who gets to be the parents.

@Coloma There’s a family story about how my parents took me to see The Little Mermaid when it first hit theaters – I was perhaps 3, 4 years old. I was absolutely terrified of Ursula the Sea Witch, and made such a scene that we had to leave. Years later, the trauma would revisit in the form of my great Aunt Linda, who had the misfortune to, at that point in her life, strongly resemble the Sea Witch.

Simply terrible. I ought to sue my folks, or Disney, or somebody.~

@tedd I’ll thank you for being polite to us, your friends.

@Sunny2 May I ask for clarification? Are you saying that male circumcision should not be considered child abuse if the boy is still a baby, but requiring it when they are older is?

Also, can you cite evidence that female circumcision in any country is conducted based upon religious reasons? From the articles that I’ve read, it is a cultural practice and not based upon religion.

@Pied_Pfeffer
There is no actual difference between cultural tradition and religious tradition.
Also someone explain to me why alleged benefits that only apply when the person becomes sexually active, have to be done as a baby, when it is in most cases not sexually active, and can not be postponed until sexual maturity, which coincidentally is also the point where the person can actually consent to the procedure?

relevant

@ragingloli People are lost in tradition and don’t realize how stupid what they’re doing is. We look at tribes in Africa that mutilate the genitals of infant girls and recoil in horror… When really the fact of the matter is we’re doing something just as stupid, just on a less horrifying scale.

STD rates and cancer rates are lower in Europe and India (where circumcision is rare) than they are in the US (where circumcision is the norm). All the arguments put forth for circumcision are based in stupidity (all that I’ve seen anyways). And all of the studies I’ve seen have been carried out almost entirely in Africa, and by religious groups that have preconceived biases for circumcision and against condoms (see Catholicism).

People say it lowers STD rates… well here’s a thought, wear a condom or have you and your partner checked before becoming sexually active, like a responsible adult…rather than relying on the very slightly reduced odds of an STD from unsafe sex you’re pointing at after circumcision (not to mention the numbers are questionable to begin with).

and @Nullo I save zero politeness for someone who would mutilate the genitals of a child, friend or no friend. I’m sorry you saw fit to have my previous post moderated, frankly I think it was well within bounds.

Lots of stupid and abusive things have a beneficial side, it does not mean it should be done.

If you cut a persons balls off they will live on average 13 years longer than they would have done with them attached. It does not mean we should rush out and do it.

Furthermore, the entire argument can be undone just by pointing out that you can avoid HIV with the use of a condom, and you can avoid urinary track infection by, you know, washing your cock from time to time.

Sexual sensitivity, pleasure in life, and control over your own body, outweigh the risk of HIV in a world with condoms.

@Coloma I see your point on vaccinations or dental work being traumatizing to a young child, based on it just being a painful physical experience in their youth. But that is not my argument against circumcision. My argument is that it’s a completely unnecessary procedure (vs vaccinations and dental work which are likely vital), and it involves something extremely personal to the child that we are completely denying him a say in. Quite frankly I’m pissed that my parents had me circumcised. I’d have much rather made that choice for myself when I became an adult, as I hold no religious views that favor it, and I adamantly reject the idea that it has benefits.

The actual act of having it done was probably not that traumatizing for me at all in the long run(though it’s worth mentioning it can sometimes go wrong and require further medical attention, which is stupid since it’s needless to begin with). It’s more this sense of feeling as though something very personal to me was violated. Also it’s worth mentioning the majority of men who have it done as adults report a lessening of sexual sensation (which is understandable since they cut right near the highest concentration of nerves in both the penis and the male body).

There is something very strange going on that I would like to point out.

The very same people who say life starts at conception, and who want everything possible done to have a fetus treated like a person and given rights, are the exact same people that want to take away the kid’s choice regarding it’s own foreskin.

I find it quite odd, the disconnect between “this fetus is a person and has rights” to “this is my kid, I own it, I raise it and do what I like to it.”

^ I would be an exception. I do believe it is a child at the point of conception, AND I am against circumcision.

@poisonedantidote The thing is that there are very few people who don’t distinguish between juvenile and adult legal status. Until they are old enough, a child will have decisions made for them.
“this is my kid, I own it, I raise it and do what I like to it.” Circumcision in Judaism was actually about a commitment to God. So it’s more like, “This is God’s kid, I’m looking after him the way He wants me to.” A lot of Christians like the symbolic meaning as well, and go with it.

@Nullo Haha, poor thing, my daughter is about your age and she was extremely traumatized by “It” the evil clown in that S.K. movie. Her grandma let her watch at around 4, unbeknownst as to how scary it was going to be. Stupid nana, I was so pissed off. Clowns with fangs coming out of the sewer. lol She hates clowns to this day.

@tedd I see your point, and, I felt this way myself years ago, but, I have mellowed with age and I think, that calling circumcision “abuse” is a little over the top.

@Pied_Pfeffer I’m just pointing out that tribal culture, which is as powerful a tradition as religion, perform circumcision on much older boys, which must be more painful. They consider it a necessity. Jomo Kenyatta’s book, Facing Mount Kenya is my source on tribal life. He wrote it to clarify sociologists’ misinformation.
It’s been pointed out that this should be a family decision, not a governmental one, and I agree with that.
Circumcision is a very short lived pain in a baby. Whether or not to do it is the parents’ decision.

@tedd Did you read the paper? What “false BS” are you talking about?

@Sunny2 I’m going to start a religion that symbolizes piercing a newborn infant boys penis so it can have some jewelry adorned. The pain the child feels is short lived, and it’s my decision as his parent to do so.

Tell me how my tradition would be any different or less valid than circumcision.

@tedd If that’s your choice, I accept it. It’s your choice. Ears of children are pierced for exactly that reason. I’d prefer it had some medical validity seeing as you live in a place where modern medicine is available.

You have a responsibility to give your child the best care. There are many issues that people find debatable when caring for an infant, such as immunizations, circumcisions, when to start solid foods, how much clothing to put on a child, when to allow a child to walk to a destination unescorted, and many others. If you prefer to have your child to wait until the age of consent to do any of these things, that’s your decision.

That is a big fat NO! I am Jewish, and the Jewish people have been doing it for thousands of years, It is much cleaner to be circumcised, and a little known fact that women prefer ones that are circumcised. It is not child abuse, when the benefites way outweigh the pain that the infant may be in from it. The pain lasts for a couple of days…the benefits last a lifetime. Furthermore, the infant doesnt really feel it from what my uncle who is a licensed pedatrician has told me, because the area is put under a local anesthetic (numbed). I feel it would be abuse to not circumcise.

@echotech10 I would love for you to list these supposed benefits, so that I can tear them to pieces for being the lies and misinformation that they are.

And it’s “cleaner?” Really? Maybe if we’re comparing two men who don’t know how to bathe themselves, then sure I could see it being cleaner.

@Sunny2 Immunizations are a matter of health for your child. We don’t give immunization shots because of tradition. When to start solid food is more a matter of development, and being incorrect on when you do it will not have a permanent effect. How much clothing to put on your child is a matter of style, and one they can readily change when they come of age. When to let them walk unescorted somewhere is a matter of safety, and again one they can change on their own when they’re older.

Most importantly, none of those things will have a permanent effect on one of your child’s most intimate things.

Circumcision has no purpose other than tradition, and it permanently changes something incredibly intimate/personal to your child.

@tedd Newsflash! I do not miss my foreskin, I am glad my parents decided to circumcise me, tradition or not.

@echotech10 Awesome. I’m glad you were fortunate enough to have an opinion that fell in line with the decision your parents made for you.

Have you considered the broad range of life-changing decisions that parents make for their children? Remember that time that the family picked up and moved three states over, forever changing your future associations? Or when they decided to homeschool you instead of sending you to the now-unaccredited public school in your area? Or when they forced you to sit still while the doctor poured milliliter upon milliliter of drugs or bacterial corpses into your bloodstream through a great thumping needle jabbed right into your arm? All those times that they made you eat your peas before finding out that you were allergic to them?
Funny that you’re so hung up on a bit of skin.

@Nullo, what a good answer.

@Nullo Your listing me things that are virtually undeniable as good, or at the very least have no strong evidence against them.

My mother was a valedictorian in college (organic chemistry too), I’ve little doubt she could’ve home schooled me better than most of my teachers. As it were though I’d say the public teachers did a pretty solid job. Vaccines or flu shots that you seem to be referencing are resoundingly approved of and have very well stated benefits (whereas the medical “pluses” for circumcision can all be resoundly proven false). Making me eat something that is generally healthy because they are unaware it is unhealthy for me by some freak situation… is hardly comparable, as there would be no evidence that it is negative and not beneficial to me (unlike circumcision).

There are no medical benefits to circumcision. It is an unchangeable and very personal choice about my god damned genitalia (let alone the religious implications of it).... it should have been my decision, not theirs.

So yes, you’ll have to pardon me if I get hung up on it.

@Nullo What would be your opinion if instead of circumcision the culturally accepted procedure was to have one of your testicles removed shortly after they descended? It could be done with a pretty non-invasive out patient surgery. It would greatly reduce your risk of cancer (far more than anything circumcision could claim). There would be no negative side effects, you could still conceive children (studies have shown with the same proclivity of two-testicle men). The surgery itself is very safe, and the traumatizing effects would be forgotten by adulthood.

What if that was the religious/cultural choice your parents had made for you before you were of an age of self-decision? Would you be so accepting of it?

@tedd And wouldn’t you know, there’s no strong evidence against circumcision, beyond your bellyaching. All of the things that I listed are painful for the kid experiencing them, with the added value of being done to a child who could actually express an opinion about them.
When I was twelve years old, my family picked up and moved to Italy. I left my friends, the rest of my family, my future as a resident of California, my Scout troop, a not-insubstantial inheritance, a degree from Stanford University, and God only knows what else – the things I would do, the people I’d meet, the girl I would marry, the man I would become. The course of my life was fundamentally changed on the day that the visas came through.
I spent the next four years integrating into a foreign culture. Then we moved to Missouri. That’s a bigger deal than a religiously-themed medical procedure. It wasn’t all fun and games. In hindsight, I’m glad that I got the experience of living abroad. It was a valuable time. By contrast, I don’t really think about foreskins except when it comes up.

Honestly, I don’t think that your suggested procedure would bother me any more than circumcision. I think you’re obsessing a bit.

@Nullo My point is, it is very important and personal to many people, and it should be left up to the owner of said penis. Frankly I think your parents upending you like that was a pretty sh*tty thing to do, fwiw.

And yes I obsess over it, because I think it’s downright barbaric that we still do these procedures. I equate them with blood letting and leaches.

@tedd You misunderstand me. I wouldn’t have had it any other way.

You will be glad to know that leeches still have a place in the world of medicine, both with regards to their anticoagulant saliva and even in blood-letting, where they can be used to reduce swelling.

@tedd, did you read the articles provided by @Rarebear?

@bkcunningham And countless others. Every thing they talk about I could (and have in previous threads on this topic) very easily discredit.

Suffice to say, most of the “science” backing up circumcision for medical purposes is just quite frankly bad science. If they’re so good for STD and cancer rates then why do Europe and India (two massive locations with way less circumcision) have lower rates of both? Why are most studies based off of African populations and carried out by groups funded by the Catholic church?

Most importantly, why do we seem to point to reasons such as STDs and hygiene, which could very easily be avoided in 1st world nations without the need for surgically/permanently altering the penis?

All of that is very interesting to me, @tedd. Could you post a link(s) to some of the studies regarding the European and Indian STD and cancer rates in regards to circumcision?

Also, are you saying that you believe the American Academy of Pediatrics studies are funded by the Catholic Church and that the studies are based on African American populations?

Did you realize that circumcision is considered against moral law by the Roman Catholic Church? Reference and reference.

@bkcunningham The article listed by the OP said that the AAoP didn’t do a research study, they reviewed various research studies by other groups and made their decision based on their findings from those studies. They do not list the specific studies they cited in the article, but I already know from studying this myself that the majority of research on circumcision is done in Africa and by groups that are funded by religious organizations such as the catholic church, who has been pushing the STD BS as an alternative to condom usage in 3rd world countries.

I’m trying to find the specific site I had found the last time this constant argument came up. It had the rates of various STD’s relative to America, western Europe, Africa, India, etc, and clearly showed negligible differences in STD/Cancer rates, and even lower rates in areas without circumcision. I’m at work though so for the moment you just get these…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_adult_prevalence_rate
Shows the US rate for AIDS is 3x higher than it is in the UK, and 2x higher than it is in India (other countries shown but they’re listed individually.. I tried to find a European one with a higher rate, but France, Spain, Italy, Germany… all lower)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/24/worldwide-cancer-rates-uk-rate-drops
This site shows cancer rates worldwide. Here you’ll notice several small European countries and France all rated with higher cancer rates (though Denmark, the #1 rate in the world, still has a lower rate in men than the US does). But more notable is the list of European nations that fall well below the US. India is sadly not on this list.

(I realize these studies are not directly based on circumcision and STD/cancer rates in these respective countries. This is because, as I have pointed out, few if any studies have been done on those details. The studies used to base the pro-circumcision data off of are based on African nations and populations there… This data I’ve provided is still valid though because of the extreme differences in circumcision rates between the different nations. In the US it’s well over ½ of the male population, vs well under 10% for pretty much the entirety of Europe and India.)

Also, the entire STD/Cancer argument is ignoring several simple facts.
-Cancers “associated” with foreskin can be very easily detected and prevented with readily/cheaply available techniques and products in the civilized/industrial world. Not to mention if we just chopped off everything that could cause cancer, we’d lose a lot of body parts. Breasts are far more likely to cause cancer than foreskin, should we pre-emptively perform mastectomies on our developing girls?
-STD’s could be prevented by simply practicing safe sex and/or having your partners checked before becoming intimate, rather than chopping off part of your body and relying on that as your protection. It’s a stupid concept to begin with. If I’m 50% likely to catch aids from my partner by having unsafe sex with my foreskin, is it suddenly ok for us to have unsafe sex without it when my chances go down to 35%? Utterly stupid argument.

I feel circumcision is child abuse pulling cutting and the pain he feels stop circumcisions