Circumcision Debate?
Sep. 3rd, 2005 07:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lalicopaI'm probably opening up a *huge* can of worms here, but here goes:
My son is circumcised. We're Jewish. I was still against it all together, but agreed for several personal reasons. I do not believe in it and if I were to have another son, it would be a huge issue (considering all the people I've met and all the information I've gathered in the years since Laszlo was born.)
I was at the beach today and was talking to an expectant mom who I went to high school with. She has 2 daughters and found out that this is a boy. I asked if she's going to have him circumcised (she and her husband are Jewish as well.) She said she was. Then her stepfather started in, saying how all boys should be circumcised because it's not healthy to be intact. He said that the rates of cervical cancer in the wives/partners of uncircumcised men are much higher. I'm too tired to do actual research tonight, so I figured I'd open this up to you intelligent people.
He also said that his father owned a hospital around WW2 and that all the military were forced to be circumcised before they left for battle, no matter how old they were. Is this true???? Also, he said that the few men who were not, came down with urinary infections. This guy said to me, "It leads to higher rates of infections even in normal situations, imagine how bad it is in the trenches."
I know I'm naive about all of this, so forgive me. I just found this man to be a total moron, but I did not have the information to back up what I was saying, so I just said that there's a huge movement to leave baby boys intact and that there seems to be no problem with that at all. I was angry that I wasn't able to argue with him because he's a jerk and it would have been fun to put him in his place, but far be it from me to have an argument when I really don't know what I'm talking about!
So, what's the deal? Cancer rates increased? I know the infection thing is bullshit.
My son is circumcised. We're Jewish. I was still against it all together, but agreed for several personal reasons. I do not believe in it and if I were to have another son, it would be a huge issue (considering all the people I've met and all the information I've gathered in the years since Laszlo was born.)
I was at the beach today and was talking to an expectant mom who I went to high school with. She has 2 daughters and found out that this is a boy. I asked if she's going to have him circumcised (she and her husband are Jewish as well.) She said she was. Then her stepfather started in, saying how all boys should be circumcised because it's not healthy to be intact. He said that the rates of cervical cancer in the wives/partners of uncircumcised men are much higher. I'm too tired to do actual research tonight, so I figured I'd open this up to you intelligent people.
He also said that his father owned a hospital around WW2 and that all the military were forced to be circumcised before they left for battle, no matter how old they were. Is this true???? Also, he said that the few men who were not, came down with urinary infections. This guy said to me, "It leads to higher rates of infections even in normal situations, imagine how bad it is in the trenches."
I know I'm naive about all of this, so forgive me. I just found this man to be a total moron, but I did not have the information to back up what I was saying, so I just said that there's a huge movement to leave baby boys intact and that there seems to be no problem with that at all. I was angry that I wasn't able to argue with him because he's a jerk and it would have been fun to put him in his place, but far be it from me to have an argument when I really don't know what I'm talking about!
So, what's the deal? Cancer rates increased? I know the infection thing is bullshit.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-04 06:20 am (UTC)I looked up the phimosis statistics a while back and it was something like 4 in 10000 get it. Contrast that to 1 in 500 who have problems with a botched circumcision, the "cure" causes more problems than the condition it's supposed to prevent. The other one commonly quoted by circumcision advocates is balanitis, which is an infection that can be avoided by basic hygiene. As above, knowing how to care for a foreskin ought to avoid this issue so only the ignorant need to be cirumcised to protect them.
OK, so I'm biased; I've still got mine and my son still has his. If he wants to get his chopped off when he's 18 then he's free to do so, but at least he's got the choice to stay intact if he wants to.
D