Circumsicion argument... **Page 11 OPs response**

[mel28nicole]

I posted this link earlier by apparently everyone bypassed it

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/circumcision-rates-declining-health-risks-rising-study-says/

 

[mel28nicole]

And what I meant was it seems like when someone is posting why they would circumcise, there are 3 or 4 posts saying why you shouldn't. If someone already has their mind made up, why try to change it?

 

[misspriss]

I posted this link earlier by apparently everyone bypassed it

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/circumcision-rates-declining-health-risks-rising-study-says/

Clinical research has found circumcision can safeguard an infant from a number of health complications, most notably urinary tract infections ...The adult lifetime risk for a UTI is approximately 1 in 3 for uncircumcised men

Women get UTIs, should we remove part of their genitalia to prevent it? Oh no, there are antibiotics for that. In fact, they are a much bigger risk for females. 1 in 3? That means 2 in 3 never get them...Oh and what is the rate for infants? When it is supposed to be more dangerous? Why did they only mention the adult male rate? My guess is, it is not that big of risk in intact boys with a foreskin to keep their penis clean.

And if it's such a risk, why does this list of "risk factors" for UTI not say anything about it?

As for HPV and STDs, I plan to teach my children, both male and female, healthy sexual habits. Hopefully they will not engage in casual sex, but if they do, they will be taught to use condoms. I don't have to remove part of their genitalia to protect them from that.

Here is a list of functions of the foreskin. I have read it, and I feel the majority of the functions WILL come into play for any male, not just a 1 in 3 or less chance.

 

[MommyJogger]

I also wanted to add that the UTI risk they quote is also from a time when the usual advice for intact infants was to retract the foreskin to clean, at diaper changes, to pee as toddlers, etc. So that risk is WITH terrible advice that increases risk of UTIs. The UTI risk for an intact male who has never had the foreskin forcibly retracted is lower.

 

[Feronia]

I also wanted to add that the UTI risk they quote is also from a time when the usual advice for intact infants was to retract the foreskin to clean, at diaper changes, to pee as toddlers, etc. So that risk is WITH terrible advice that increases risk of UTIs. The UTI risk for an intact male who has never had the foreskin forcibly retracted is lower.

That's a really good point. There's so much misinformation about caring for intact penises that the improper care certainly influences these statistics. If you don't forcibly retract the foreskin, it helps protect the glans from infection. When the foreskin does start to retract on its own (usually around 3-4), very basic hygiene should be taught... but isn't that a given anyway? I am teaching my daughter how to wipe herself properly, which is a harder skill to master than caring for an intact penis.

And I've gotten UTIs throughout my life -- it's very common for women, yet we aren't mutilated to lower the risk. My intact husband has never had an issue with his penis!

 

[mel28nicole]

https://m.kidshealth.org/parent/emmi_kids/procedure_circumcision.html

Just wanted to post this as well that explains the procedure, which seems to help explain that the baby does receive pain medication, and there is very little bleeding.

In my case if I were to have a boy, we would have to delay due to my husband having von Willebrand's disease

 

[Feronia]

Go watch videos of the procedure being done and then tell me that you're comfortable putting your baby boy through that unnecessarily.

 

[misspriss]

https://m.kidshealth.org/parent/emmi_kids/procedure_circumcision.html

Just wanted to post this as well that explains the procedure, which seems to help explain that the baby does receive pain medication, and there is very little bleeding.

In my case if I were to have a boy, we would have to delay due to my husband having von Willebrand's disease

I'd never have a fingernail ripped off under a "safe dose" of Tylenol.

Boys who are circumcised before the age of five are more likely to develop autism and ADHD, according to a new study.

The controversial research suggests that parents who insist on circumcising their sons can double that child’s risk of developing autism.

The scientists behind the study believe that the heightened risk is caused by the stress resulting from the pain that young boys feel during the circumcision procedure.

Researchers studied more than 340,000 boys in Denmark and found that circumcision increases the likelihood of developing autism by 46%.

Link.

Of course, it's speculated that the link is actually between acetaminophen use at the time of circumcision. I'll post more on that later.

 

[Amythyst]

Ah, the circumcision debate. It usually does get ugly on the boards I've seen but "most" of the posts I read seemed civil (I didn't read the whole thread though).

You know, I actually read a thread where someone compared circumcision to getting your cat declawed. It used to just be a thing we did to our cats and thought nothing of it and now a days, its cruel and you're ripping off their toes unnecessarily and people want to ban it.

It is interesting to me to see the cultural differences and that circumcision seems to be more of a US thing than compared to Europe. My husband is from Denmark and like someone else said, very few people in Europe get this done. So, he is not circumcised. I will say he has never had any medical issues, no UTIs and nothing adverse from it being there. There is also nothing unclean about it. Honestly, I think people today do it more because they think it makes it "look prettier". We're all about the ascetics right?

To me, it is a very personal decision that both parents should agree with but I don't think it should be a wild crazy debate. You either do or you don't and nobody should judge you for it.

On an intimate note, I've been with guys that have been and those that haven't and I have to say I like the "au naturale" ones better!

Our son will also be retaining his foreskin like one of the other posters said to be "just like dad" and I'm fine with it being that way. But it was a joint consent and to the OP, I agree your husband should let you have a say and not just be "he's getting it and that's final". I hope you're able to work it out.

 

[misspriss]

Interesting study. It is high level data, so it can't prove causation, but it does show a strong correlation.

Results

Using all available country-level data (n = 8) for the period 1984 to 2005, prenatal use of paracetamol was correlated with autism/ASD prevalence (r = 0.80). For studies including boys born after 1995, there was a strong correlation between country-level (n = 9) autism/ASD prevalence in males and a country’s circumcision rate (r = 0.98). A very similar pattern was seen among U.S. states and when comparing the 3 main racial/ethnic groups in the U.S. The country-level correlation between autism/ASD prevalence in males and paracetamol was considerably weaker before 1995 when the drug became widely used during circumcision.
Conclusions

This ecological analysis identified country-level correlations between indicators of prenatal and perinatal paracetamol exposure and autism/ASD. State level correlation was also identified for the indicator of perinatal paracetamol exposure and autism/ASD. Like all ecological analyses, these data cannot provide strong evidence of causality. However, biologic plausibility is provided by a growing body of experimental and clinical evidence linking paracetamol metabolism to pathways shown to be important in autism and related developmental abnormalities. Taken together, these ecological findings and mechanistic evidence suggest the need for formal study of the role of paracetamol in autism.

Link

Strong link between autism rates and circumcision, although it is considerably less strong when paracetamol is not routinely used.

Again, I wouldn't consider a liver-safe dose of acetaminophen/paracetamol effective pain relief for the procedure.

 

[hairftsher]

I swear some people have nothing better to do than spend so much time on research on a topic like this

Your baby your decisions. If you're really going to sit back and watch people argue over something that is very culturally based. I'm in the US, I would do it. Its what we do around here. I'm really not going to question it because doctors don't do things "just because they can." If it was a "dangerous" and "unnecessary" as you people are making it out to be, we wouldn't do it. I'm telling you, the information that is provided is very bias based on where you're from.

There's no reason to have super long posts to prove why you feel the way you feel. Its just like FF vs BF, traditional weaning vs BLW. This is turning into a "I'm right, your wrong" debate

Your baby your decisions? Uh. You don't OWN a human, a human comes through you. We make decisions that best suit the life of another and raise them to make health decisions for themselves. I'm not sure why we all feel entitled to alter someone else's body without consent. It's rather sick, but that's just my opinion.
I'm also not sure why you're so angry people are taking the time to research it? If you think they have nothing better to do its curious you bother responding. I also saw that you yourself posted links.

 

[SurpriseBub]

Shall we just call time on this thread? ...it seems like everything worth saying has been said at this point!

 

[Edmondsgirl]

as the mother of two boys, I always feel that if dad is done the son should be done as well. However if a man is not done but requests and feels so strongly that his son should be then there has to be good reason. I side with dad on this one.

I agree its cleaner and I have also sat in the room and watched it being done to my 15 month old when he was a few weeks old. Its the needle that freezes the penis that hurts not the procedure itself.

 

[misspriss]

I wonder how many grown sexually active women who have experienced sex would agree to voluntarily have their clitoral hood removed if someone has told them it might reduce the chance of a UTI? The clitoral hood serves a similar purpose to the clitoris (keeping it moist and protected) as the foreskin does the glans.

 

[felix555]

I also wanted to add that the UTI risk they quote is also from a time when the usual advice for intact infants was to retract the foreskin to clean, at diaper changes, to pee as toddlers, etc. So that risk is WITH terrible advice that increases risk of UTIs. The UTI risk for an intact male who has never had the foreskin forcibly retracted is lower.

That's interesting because this thread has me wondering ... I can only say this in hindsight but if there was 1% chance of circumcision reducing the chance of UTI and someone asked me if it's worth doing then based on my own experience of my baby nearly dying at 6 weeks from a UTI, I'd have to say yes of course as it was the worst thing I've ever gone through. Would have to be some strong scientific evidence of this 1% and even then .. hmmm I'm not really sure.

I don't think the thread should be closed there is only one person getting offended really, I'm sure admin will deal with is if it gets out of hand as there is one active on this thread.

 

[pansorie]

It is way more common in America as others have said. I don't know of any man who isn't circumcised or didn't have their son circumcised unless they are from another country. I've never actually seen an uncircumcised penis except on a little boy of a friend where the father is foreign. I believe US health officials, the American Academy of Pediatrics & the CDC recently came out supporting it...my mom sent me an article a few weeks ago, but they said the benefits outweigh the risks. But I do think it's largely cultural. I'm sure if I lived in Europe where its not common at all I wouldn't have it done.

It def is a US thing, as you can see from all the responses non US women give on here.
I see both sides, it's surely something to be thought about, thank goodness I've had girls!
But just reading this comment above, I've never seen an uncircumcised one either, on partners or on others' children. Every little boy I know has had it done.
It is interesting - if we don't make it a " you're a bad mother" debate- to hear from other places in the world, and how it is handled and viewed differently

I am in the U.S. and I have seen plenty of uncircumcised penises. Circumcision did not become a U.S. thing until at least the 1960s, or later. Working in the nursing homes and hospice most of the elderly gentlemen I have seen were uncut, in fact I cannot think of one who was circumcised. And I have seen many old men schlongs, lol.

My husband is 26, born and raised in Michigan, and he is not circumcised. But his parents are pagan hippies who are known for going against the grain... Either which way, my husband and his siblings were brought up with the belief that circumcision is cruel to impose on a baby and unnecessary. Hubby is indifferent to many things, but this is something he is firm about.

I honestly do not see the point, either. I find most pro circumcision arguments to be easily refuted, and there are a growing number of young moms in the U.S. who are opposing it. In many states medicaid will no longer cover it. I do believe the tides are starting to change, but it is a slow growing movement.

 

[SurpriseBub]

I also wanted to add that the UTI risk they quote is also from a time when the usual advice for intact infants was to retract the foreskin to clean, at diaper changes, to pee as toddlers, etc. So that risk is WITH terrible advice that increases risk of UTIs. The UTI risk for an intact male who has never had the foreskin forcibly retracted is lower.

That's interesting because this thread has me wondering ... I can only say this in hindsight but if there was 1% chance of circumcision reducing the chance of UTI and someone asked me if it's worth doing then based on my own experience of my baby nearly dying at 6 weeks from a UTI, I'd have to say yes of course as it was the worst thing I've ever gone through. Would have to be some strong scientific evidence of this 1% and even then .. hmmm I'm not really sure.

I don't think the thread should be closed there is only one person getting offended really, I'm sure admin will deal with is if it gets out of hand as there is one active on this thread.

I'm not offended ...it just seems like it is going in circles!

 

[felix555]

These discussions usually do

I wasn't talking about you getting offended Surprisebub

 

[Feronia]

as the mother of two boys, I always feel that if dad is done the son should be done as well. However if a man is not done but requests and feels so strongly that his son should be then there has to be good reason. I side with dad on this one.

I agree its cleaner and I have also sat in the room and watched it being done to my 15 month old when he was a few weeks old. Its the needle that freezes the penis that hurts not the procedure itself.

I'm not sure why it's thought that a little boy's penis needs to match his father's enough so that you need to perform surgery. Boys hardly go around comparing their penises, and if there are differences, so what? There are going to be differences either way. Girl's vulvas look different. It's part of being individuals. Both parents have the joint responsibility to make lifelong decisions related to their children, owning a penis doesn't make one an expert on one.

You can't "agree" that it's cleaner when that's simply not true. A circumcised penis is not "cleaner" than an intact one.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...cision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds

 

[mel28nicole]

I also wanted to add that the UTI risk they quote is also from a time when the usual advice for intact infants was to retract the foreskin to clean, at diaper changes, to pee as toddlers, etc. So that risk is WITH terrible advice that increases risk of UTIs. The UTI risk for an intact male who has never had the foreskin forcibly retracted is lower.

That's interesting because this thread has me wondering ... I can only say this in hindsight but if there was 1% chance of circumcision reducing the chance of UTI and someone asked me if it's worth doing then based on my own experience of my baby nearly dying at 6 weeks from a UTI, I'd have to say yes of course as it was the worst thing I've ever gone through. Would have to be some strong scientific evidence of this 1% and even then .. hmmm I'm not really sure.

I don't think the thread should be closed there is only one person getting offended really, I'm sure admin will deal with is if it gets out of hand as there is one active on this thread.

I'm not offended ...it just seems like it is going in circles!

Agree, that's the point I was trying to make. One says yes and why, three or four people say no and why. Then repeat