I agree I think that circumcision is a mutilation.
I know it's hard for people to hear - especially men who have been circumcised or parents who have circumcised their child.
I was responding to Michah's post:
Comment by Micah Oliver 13 hours ago I recommend Joe and Richard watch this person's videos on circumcision after listening to episode #28. Of special interest as they relate to the episode is the video(s) comparing female and male circumcision. They are all excellent videos, and I happen to like his approach.
Male circumcision also effects female sexual pleasure. Removing the male foreskin reduces female pleasure when having sex with circumcised male vs an uncircumcised male. It is more pleasurable for a female, to have sex with a male who has a foreskin. It is more easy to climax. External clitoral stimulation is more necessary for a women to climax when having sex with a circumcised male.
Dunn - I appreciate the point you are making regarding the requirement for informed decision making. However let me clarify, you are not advocating circumcision as a publicly funded preventative treatment for phimosis are you? I am also confused as to how you could justify the individual choice of preventative surgery for phimosis + other uncircumcised related health issues. All the reading I have done to date on this topic points quite clearly to the idea that circumcision does not meet the criteria for a public intervention/screening programme. This means the prevalence, cost and personal cost (ie; the trauma you speak of, which I have also witnessed firsthand) of the condition does not justify population wide circumcision. Naturally there are individual cases (alluded to earlier in this discussion) where the scales are tipped in favour of the procedure. You mention however, your sons case is not one of these. Therefore I wonder why you say you'd choose differently when the research just doesn't support such a decision at both a population level and an individual level (of a non high risk individual). I think I might have missed something, I'll go back and re-read your comments.
Sorry can't get the Edit function to work - I wanted to address this comment specifically.
"New born babies do not have grown penises and foreskins; they don't get erections. It doesn't take them weeks to heal".
Firstly, in the interests of accuracy, newborn babies certainly do have erections. Secondly, I think it's important that we be careful about attempting to marginalised the 'problems' (it's hard to classify them as specifically morbidity or mortality etc) associated with infant circumcision. Firstly the serious complication rates vary depending on where the procedure is performed and by whom. Secondly, reported 'complications' such as, but not limited to, vomiting, prolonged inability to urinate and disruption to breastfeeding are notoriously under reported. As well and importantly, methods of gauging infant physical and psychological pain and distress levels are continuously being refined & are, as we can all imagine, difficult. Thirdly, just for interest sake, many studies report mean healing time for infants as around 10 days.
Adult suffering which can be mitigated by the warmth of human comfort; the knowledge that time passes, and with it, pain; and by conscious understanding of the health necessity for that pain, of course is the only choice.And a great deal of Vicodin, or something similar. That stuff was freaking awesome, when I had Mono, 4 or 5 years back. I imagine that dosing him up for a few days will help things significantly. That's another thing that you can't do, in the case of a baby.