Discussion:
Circumcision, yes or no ?
(too old to reply)
melis
2004-11-21 15:03:44 UTC
Permalink
Hi, we are expecting in less that 4 weeks and we choose not to know the sex
of our future baby, But If it is a boy - should we have him Circumcised?
I have not been told of any real advantages of having it done and right now
we are swayed towards not doing it, any thoughts??
thanks,
Mel

http://home.mindspring.com/~melis63/babyannouncement/
Lindy
2004-11-21 19:43:07 UTC
Permalink
i would say to do it. i know someone who isnt and they wish there
parents would have done it. plus i think it looks gross but thats just
me. we had our baby circumsised and didnt even cry. plus it was pretty
easy to take care of and only had to do it for a week

http://community.webtv.net/lindo_84/LindysPictures
http://community.webtv.net/lindo_84/NoahsBabyPage
Todd Gastaldo
2004-11-21 20:36:13 UTC
Permalink
MOST BABIES **SCREAM**

Some babies die or get infected and lose their penises - i.e. - they have to
have their penises *totally* amputated - though fortunately death and penile
loss are rare.
Post by Lindy
i would say to do it. i know someone who isnt and they wish there
parents would have done it. plus i think it looks gross but thats just
me. we had our baby circumsised and didnt even cry. plus it was pretty
easy to take care of and only had to do it for a week
http://community.webtv.net/lindo_84/LindysPictures
http://community.webtv.net/lindo_84/NoahsBabyPage
Lindy,

As I noted on the subject line - most babies SCREAM during the amputation.

Babies also scream when they urinate into the wound.

Yet for the longest time, American MDs obtained "informed consent" for the
felony using phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology...

When I pointed out in 1987 American medicine's phony "babies can't feel
pain" neurology, American MD-pediatricians could not admit the fraud because
that would have been admitting a massive crime - so they lied - they said
their "no medical indication" most frequent surgical behavior toward males
suddenly prevented transmission of HIV/AIDS.

When I called for a Jewish exemption from the child abuse laws, the
pediatricians came out against all religious exemptions and for anonymity
for PERPETRATORS of child abuse! (I am not making this up!)

Incidentally, when MDs suddenly declared that partial penis amputation in
infants prevents transmission of HIV/AIDS - there were "no medical
indications" for the grisly surgery - they did so by voice vote ignoring
their own Scientific Board to declare the massive grisly crime "an effective
public health measure."

Did I mention - they IGNORED THEIR OWN SCIENTIFIC
BOARD?

In 2000, when American MD-pediatricians finally admitted that babies CAN
feel pain, they said babies can't VERBALIZE their pain (!) - but said
nothing about using phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology all those
years - as they *repeated* the phony neurology to "explain" why it is hard
to strap a baby down with his legs spread-eagled for the grisly partial
penile amputation.

American MDs are telling similar lies in a lame attempt to cover-up their
routine abdomen and vagina slicing felonies....

See Pediatrician 'ethics' (Attn: Gesundheit et al.)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2908

As usual, I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. MDs are just
academic prime cuts forced through this culture's most powerful mental
meatgrinder - medical school.

As medical students, MDs are TRAINED to perform felonies.

BTW, I also am in favor of an exemption from the child abuse laws for the
ancient Jewish ritual that left most of the foreskin on the penis.

In "Pediatrician 'ethics', URL just cited, I discuss the fact that
pediatricians recently perpetuated the myth that the ancient Jewish ritual
is the same as American medicine's TOTAL infant foreskin amputation.

It is time to end the TOTAL foreskin amputation abomination that is American
medicine's $400 million dollar per year most frequent surgical behavior
toward males.

The mass MD felony should have ended BILLIONS of dollars' worth of infant
foreskin amputations ago - back in 1987 when I pointed out MDs were using
phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology for a "no medical indications"
surgery.

There are STILL no medical indications.

Ending the surgery not only stops the senseless infant
screams - it instantly saves America $400 million and - paradoxically -
PRESERVES the surgery as a CHOICE American males can make for themselves in
adulthood.

The $400 million per year instant savings would likely be permanent.When
Britain stopped paying for infant circumcision - the rate plummeted to
near-zero - and has remained their ever since.

Fortunately, most human females don't mind the look of the natural penis...

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
***@chiromotion.com
PF Riley
2004-11-22 03:41:27 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:36:13 GMT, fraudulent liar Todd Gastaldo, D.C.,
Post by Todd Gastaldo
MOST BABIES **SCREAM**
Gastaldo does not nor has he ever performed circumcisions and I'll bet
he can count on either one or zero hands how many circumcisions he has
witnessed.

Poll: To all people on these newsgroups who either perform or witness
circumcisions regularly, what percent would you say "scream"?

I'll go first. I'd guess, oh, about 1%. Most are perfectly content
staring at the ceiling with a sucrose-soaked pacifier. They cry (not
scream) when the anesthetic is injected then seem completely unaware
of the actual foreskin amputation.

Anyone else?

Todd goes on: "Babies also scream when they urinate into the wound."

They do? Wait a minute... aren't we told by so-called
anti-establishment "alternative" pseudo-professionals in health care
(e.g. chiropractors, homeopaths, naturopaths, and other con artists)
that urine is GOOD for whatever ails you?

http://www.all-natural.com/urine.html

"Because urine is both anti-viral and anti-bacterial, it's ideal for
treating cuts, wounds and abrasions of all kinds."

http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/urine.htm

"Urine is helpful for acne, eczema, psoriasis, ringworm, sores, fungal
infections, insect bites, snake bites, wounds, burns, abrasions, and
even gangrene."

Here's a good site which mentions a chiropractor who used urine
therapy who is, lo and behold, also a bald-faced liar. (Is it part of
the training, or is it a prerequisite that you be a liar already
before enrolling in D.C. school, I wonder?)

http://www.salon.com/health/feature/1999/06/07/urine/print.html
Post by Todd Gastaldo
John Wynhausen, a former chiropractor disbarred for practicing urine
therapy, had said he had never heard of anyone who died from urine
therapy, though he, like everyone else at the conference, does not
recommended it for anyone on prescription drugs. His only mishap in
eight years of experimentation came when he injected his dog with its
own urine and the dog developed an abscess. "The vet asked what
happened," Wynhausen said. "I said, 'Oh, the cat bit him.' I didn't
need any more publicity."
(Note as well, of course, the unethical experimentation by this
chiropractor on a dog, as well as the potential consequences of lying
to the veterinarian so that the dog will be treated for an abscess
suspected of containing oral pathogens from a cat rather than canine
coliforms.)

So, which is it, Todd? Do you agree with your fellow
anti-medical-industrial-complex-establishment colleagues who think
urine is the harmless cure-all for everything, good to pour into
wounds, or do you think babies "SCREAM" when they pee on their
circumcision wounds (implying, of course, that this is a bad thing)?

PF
wc
2004-11-22 07:10:07 UTC
Permalink
massive snip
Anyone else?<<
I have witnessed hundreds of male circumcisions. There is a special
board the infant is strapped to. They DO SCREAM, and there is
NO anesthesia injected. I have never seen an infant given anything
to pacify it, and they don't lie there and stare at the ceiling. They
scream, you fool.
PF Riley
2004-11-22 15:26:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by wc
massive snip
Anyone else?<<
I have witnessed hundreds of male circumcisions. There is a special
board the infant is strapped to. They DO SCREAM, and there is
NO anesthesia injected. I have never seen an infant given anything
to pacify it, and they don't lie there and stare at the ceiling. They
scream, you fool.
OK, people in third world countries don't count. Gastaldo is
complaining about American "MDs".

PF
wc
2004-11-22 16:52:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by PF Riley
Post by wc
massive snip
Anyone else?<<
I have witnessed hundreds of male circumcisions. There is a special
board the infant is strapped to. They DO SCREAM, and there is
NO anesthesia injected. I have never seen an infant given anything
to pacify it, and they don't lie there and stare at the ceiling. They
scream, you fool.
OK, people in third world countries don't count. Gastaldo is
complaining about American "MDs".
PF
I don't know who Gastaldo is, I live in the United States, I am an
American Health Care Professional . . . and infant males being
circumcised, SCREAM.
Cathy Weeks
2004-11-22 18:35:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by PF Riley
Post by wc
I have witnessed hundreds of male circumcisions. There is a special
board the infant is strapped to. They DO SCREAM, and there is
NO anesthesia injected. I have never seen an infant given anything
to pacify it, and they don't lie there and stare at the ceiling.
They
Post by PF Riley
Post by wc
scream, you fool.
OK, people in third world countries don't count. Gastaldo is
complaining about American "MDs".
Well, my husband witnessed his son's circumcision, and first of all, my
husband had to INSIST that they use a numbing agent - it wasn't
routine. Granted this was 10 years ago, so lets hope they've gotten
better. Second of all, my stepson SCREAMED when he had the injection
(imagine getting a needle shoved into the base of your penis - don't
you think it would hurt?), and then continued to scream throughout the
procedure. It was so traumatic, my husband swore he'd never, ever,
circumcise another child, and regrets having it done to his son.

Granted, this isn't what you were looking for (someone in the
healthcare field who has seen lots), but it's my experience. My
childbirth instructor on the other hand, HAS seen lots of circumcisions
(she's a L&D nurse) and says that babies routinely scream, and so
counsels against it in her classes.
Cathy Weeks
Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01
Todd Gastaldo
2004-11-22 21:56:00 UTC
Permalink
MEDICAL PRIESTS (MDs) HIDE BEHIND RABBIS' ROBES...

See below

Pseudonymous usenet pediatrician PF Riley, MD once wrote:

"I wouldn't give a flying fuck if none of my patients were circumcised."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3f430586.737407126%40news.nwlink.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

Yep - there are only "potential" medical indications.

"Potential" medical indications was the pediatrician gag when AAP tried to
find medical indications to buttress the California Medical Association's
brand new, MDs-stay-out-of-prison "effective public health measure.

I had just exposed pediatrician perpetuation of phony "babies can't feel
pain" neurology.

See below.



PF Riley, MD is pretending infants don't scream as MDs literally rip and
slice their penises...
Post by PF Riley
Post by wc
massive snip
Anyone else?<<
I have witnessed hundreds of male circumcisions. There is a special
board the infant is strapped to. They DO SCREAM, and there is
NO anesthesia injected. I have never seen an infant given anything
to pacify it, and they don't lie there and stare at the ceiling. They
scream, you fool.
OK, people in third world countries don't count. Gastaldo is
complaining about American "MDs".
PF
OF COURSE GASTALDO IS COMPLAING ABOUT AMERICAN MDS!!

Pseudonymous usenet pediatrician PF Riley, MD pretends that American
medicine's most frequent surgical behavior is not assault and battery on a
child - not mass child abuse by MDs.

Unless babies are rendered unconscious by the pain, most babies scream and
writhe. Some die or get infected and lose their penises - though
fortunately death and penile loss are rare.

FACT: In 1987, I discovered pediatricians perpetuating American medicine's
phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology.

That was over two BILLION dollars' worth of infant screams ago.

I am in favor of a religious exemption from the child abuse laws for the
ancient Jewish ritual that leaves most of the foreskin on the penis...

1. Whereas the ancient Jewish ritual leaves most of the foreskin on the
penis - the medical ritual involves TOTAL foreskin amputation.

2. Whereas Jews sincerely believe their God commands circumcision - MDs are
blase about their total foreskin amputation ritual...

Blase... For the longest time, MDs used phony neurology to claim that
babies can't feel pain; and, as quoted above, pseudonymous usenet
pediatrician PF Riley, MD once wrote:

"I wouldn't give a flying fuck if none of my patients were circumcised."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3f430586.737407126%40news.nwlink.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

American pediatricians KNOW their grisly total foreskin amputation ritual is
mass child abuse.

THE MD COVER-UP: American MD priests hid behind the rabbis' robes...

In an Oct. 11, 1987 letter, I noted pediatricians perpetuating American
medicine's phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology and demanded an end to
the "no medical indications" partial penile amputation.

I copied the New England Journal of Medicine.

The Nov. 19, 1987 New England Journal of Medicine suddenly ran Anand and
Hickeys' article admitting the phony neurology - along with an editorial
stating that BABIES incur the pain of their circumcisions! (Anand later told
me that the Journal had been sitting on his article for over a year - it was
"too inflammatory" they told him.)

In November/December 1988, I wrote to Congress calling for a religious
exemption for the ancient Jewish ritual.

In January 1988, the pediatricians (the journal PEDIATRICS) came out against
ALL religious child abuse exemptions.

In February 1988, the pediatricians came out for anonymity of PERPETRATORS
of child abuse.

In March 1988, the California Medical Association/CMA suddenly - by voice
vote of its House of Delegates - declared the obvious "no medical
indications" child abuse to be "an effective public health measure." (The
CMA had to ignore its own Scientific Board which had recently squashed a
nearly identical resolution.)

CONTINUING to lie to parents to obtain "informed consent" - THAT is child
abuse

Sticking needles into baby penises to anesthetize (cover-up) child abuse -
that too is child abuse.

Attempting to soothe the baby with a sucrose pacifier as his penis is
literally ripped apart and his foreskin amputated - that too is child abuse.

Mark Lowry, III, MD writes: "A pacifier dipped in sugar actually goes a
LONG way toward
palliating an infant undergoing a circumcision."

Hillary Israeli, VMD replied: "Or [one dipped in] Manischewitz [wine], for
that matter..."

These MD/VMD cover-up behaviors are just as illegal as the grisly partial
penile amputation itself.

Some babies die or get infected and lose their penises; and though death and
penile loss are rare - screaming and writhing and bleeding are not - even
when sucrose/wine pacifiers are used...

Mark Lowry, III, MD acknowledged the screams to "wc"...

"Yes, some babies do scream...You are wrong to state that there is no
anesthesia. Most doctors
(at least those who have been trained in the last 15 years or so) use
a locally injected anesthetic to address pain. Those who don't are
ignorant dinosaurs, IMNSHO."

Mark is wrong to pretend that - with or without anesthesia - American
pediatricians are not violating their own stated ethics (see below; not to
mention penal laws against child abuse)...

Even if only "some" babies are screaming - anesthetized child abuse is still
child abuse...

INFANT SCREAMS...

Here two nurses discussed the screams...

"After years of strapping babies down for this brutal procedure and
listening to their screams, we couldn't take it any longer." [Sperlich
BK, Conant M. Am J Nurs (Jun)1994:16. http://www.cirp.org/nrc/]

Here's a nurse calling it "barbaric"...

"Nursing alert...[N]urses must consider their participation in a
surgical procedure that involves no anesthesia to be a barbaric
practice." (p. 205) Donna L. Wong's Essentials of
Pediatric Nursing [1997]

Here's an MD calling it "barbaric"...

"[S]till all too often barbaric...[M.D.s]...would never allow older children
or adults to be subjected to such practices, nor would they submit to it
themselves..." [Veteran circumcision cheerleader Colonel Thomas E. Wiswell,
MD in article in the April 24, 1997 New England Journal of
Medicine]

In 1980, one pediatrician correctly identified the mass child abuse:

"[Routine infant circumcision] constitutes child abuse...an acknowledged
hazard to health." [Michael Katz, MD: Letter. AJDC, 1980]

In 1986, another pediatrician wrote:

"What a terrible indictment...guilty of failing those for whom we have
chosen to be advocates." [Finkel KC: The failure to report child abuse.
AJDC, 1986;140:329-330]

American pediatricians who perform routine infant circumcisions violate
their own ethics:

"[T]he pediatrician's responsibilities to his or her patient exist
independent of parental desires...

"...A[n infant's screaming writhing and bleeding obviously constitutes
the - TDG] patient's reluctance or refusal to assent [and - TDG]
should...carry considerable weight when the proposed intervention is not
essential to his or her welfare
and/or can be deferred without substantial risk...

"[T]hose who care for children need to provide for measures to solicit
assent and to attend to possible abuses of 'raw' power over children when
ethical conflicts occur."
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS
Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in Pediatric
Practice(RE9510)
Pediatrics Volume 95, Number 2 February, 1995, p. 314-317
http://www.aap.org/policy/00662.html

Pseudonymous usenet pediatrician PF Riley, MD is perpetuating the mass child
abuse COVER-UP as his fellow MDs engage in mass child abuse.

It is time to EXEMPT the ancient Jewish ritual that leaves most of the
foreskin on the penis...

It is time to END the medical ritual - and instantly save America the
estimated $400 million dollars per year spent on organized medicine's
ongoing child abuse for profit scheme.

As usual, I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. MDs are just
academic prime cuts forced through this culture's most powerful mental
meatgrinder - medical school.

As medical students, MDs are TRAINED to perform grisly felonies.

For a discussion of the other grisly felonies performed by MDs...

See SLAPP: How MDs get away with grisly felonies: Censor Bob Dubin, DC and
the Schroeder-SLAPP-censored chirolist
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2959

Thanks for reading,

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
***@chiromotion.com

PS Of course, MDs don't need to stop their felonies and don't need pardons
in advance because it is legal for them to commit felonies - or rather - MDs
**will not be prosecuted** for their felonies by district attorneys and
attorney generals - the other parties who run the medico-"legal" "just us"
system...

You know, admitting that fact - finally ARTICULATING that fact - *really*
helps. My thanks to the women on misc.kids.pregnancy who encouraged me to
openly acknowledge the futility of thinking MDs are equal under the law.

Hopefully, a parent or two reading this has decided not to pay an MD to
commit child abuse on their infant son.

The vast majority of babies do not lose their lives or their penises - but
some do - most "only" scream and writhe and bleed - or maybe only "some"
scream - per Mark MD's comment above.
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
2004-11-22 22:04:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Gastaldo
PF Riley, MD is pretending infants don't scream as MDs literally rip and
slice their penises...
Wow, Todd--they literally rip penises? Veddy, veddy badd!
BTW, I haven't seen a rabbi in a robe outside of Borough Park or Crown
Heights or Williamsburg in quite some time.

Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Todd Gastaldo
2004-11-23 06:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
Post by Todd Gastaldo
PF Riley, MD is pretending infants don't scream as MDs literally rip and
slice their penises...
Wow, Todd--they literally rip penises? Veddy, veddy badd!
BTW, I haven't seen a rabbi in a robe outside of Borough Park or Crown
Heights or Williamsburg in quite some time.
I've seen that robe. Someone should use it.

Todd
s***@iloveagoodbook.com
2004-11-23 07:08:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by PF Riley
Post by wc
massive snip
Anyone else?<<
I have witnessed hundreds of male circumcisions. There is a special
board the infant is strapped to. They DO SCREAM, and there is
NO anesthesia injected. I have never seen an infant given anything
to pacify it, and they don't lie there and stare at the ceiling. They
scream, you fool.
OK, people in third world countries don't count. Gastaldo is
complaining about American "MDs".
PF
Ok. I get it now. Because third world babies "enjoy" their circs, then
the rest of the world ought to do it too.
Mark
2004-11-22 18:50:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by wc
massive snip
Anyone else?<<
I have witnessed hundreds of male circumcisions. There is a special
board the infant is strapped to. They DO SCREAM, and there is
NO anesthesia injected. I have never seen an infant given anything
to pacify it, and they don't lie there and stare at the ceiling. They
scream, you fool.
#1) Yes, some babies do scream.

#2) You are wrong to state that there is no anesthesia. Most doctors
(at least those who have been trained in the last 15 years or so) use
a locally injected anesthetic to address pain. Those who don't are
ignorant dinosaurs, IMNSHO.

#3) A pacifier dipped in sugar actually goes a LONG way toward
palliating an infant undergoing a circumcision.

Mark, MD
Hillary Israeli
2004-11-22 19:14:24 UTC
Permalink
In <***@posting.google.com>,
Mark <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:

*#3) A pacifier dipped in sugar actually goes a LONG way toward
*palliating an infant undergoing a circumcision.

Or Manischewitz, for that matter.
--
Hillary Israeli, VMD
Lafayette Hill/PA/USA/Earth
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is
too dark to read." --Groucho Marx
Leanne
2004-11-21 23:48:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lindy
i would say to do it. i know someone who isnt and they wish there
parents would have done it. plus i think it looks gross but thats just
me. we had our baby circumsised and didnt even cry. plus it was pretty
easy to take care of and only had to do it for a week
http://community.webtv.net/lindo_84/LindysPictures
http://community.webtv.net/lindo_84/NoahsBabyPage
errrr... they dont cry because they are in shock!!

Imagine someone cutting the skin off your finger leaving only muscle and
bone... now that would hurt..
--
Leanne
--------------------------------
Before you were conceived I wanted you,
Before you were born I loved you,
Before you were here an hour I would die for you,
This is the miracle of life.

http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/lstacherski/album?.dir=/1b24&.src=ph&.tok=phycXACBNCUuF54J
Nan
2004-11-22 16:17:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leanne
errrr... they dont cry because they are in shock!!
Imagine someone cutting the skin off your finger leaving only muscle and
bone... now that would hurt..
And silly me.... when I saw the OP, I was hoping this thread would be
able to survive without negativitity being tossed at someone.

Nan
Vicky Bilaniuk
2004-11-22 17:45:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nan
Post by Leanne
errrr... they dont cry because they are in shock!!
Imagine someone cutting the skin off your finger leaving only muscle and
bone... now that would hurt..
And silly me.... when I saw the OP, I was hoping this thread would be
able to survive without negativitity being tossed at someone.
Heh heh... I was secretly wondering how long it would take for this
thread to take off. ;-)
Nan
2004-11-22 18:09:47 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:45:53 -0500, Vicky Bilaniuk
Post by Vicky Bilaniuk
Heh heh... I was secretly wondering how long it would take for this
thread to take off. ;-)
Hey, maybe we should get a betting pool going next time!

Nan
Todd Gastaldo
2004-11-22 20:15:14 UTC
Permalink
A POSITIVE/NEGATIVE
Post by Nan
Post by Leanne
errrr... they dont cry because they are in shock!!
Imagine someone cutting the skin off your finger leaving only muscle and
bone... now that would hurt..
And silly me.... when I saw the OP, I was hoping this thread would be
able to survive without negativitity being tossed at someone.
Nan,

The California Supreme Court is with you on this one - it didn't hear the
appeal of the London case; so the appeals court's decision stands:

In California, a parent may consent to a medical procedure even if there are
no medical indications.

Obvious child abuse is legal in California.

Period.

Given the infant screams and the MD lies - and the occasional infant death
or loss of the WHOLE penis (MAJOR negativity!)...

I think the California Supreme Court decision was just more negativity to
keep MDs out of prison.

MDs commit LOTS of felonies - especially during and immediately after
birth...

See Pediatrician 'ethics' (Attn: Gesundheit et al.)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2908

They don't call it the medico-"legal" "just us" system for nothing.

Bottomline, a sort of positive/negative...

MDs can legally commit felonies.

Todd
Stormlady
2004-11-21 20:20:08 UTC
Permalink
There are no real advantages to having it done! It hurts the child being
done, and during the 3 or 4 weeks it takes to heal properly, and every time
he pees (imagine peeing on a cut) The foreskin also keeps dirt and germs
away from the infant penis, helping to keep it clean, (despite what you will
hear to the contrary)

And an uncircumsised penis does not look gross!! That is just silly talk

I would go with your inclination to not have it done.
Post by melis
Hi, we are expecting in less that 4 weeks and we choose not to know the sex
of our future baby, But If it is a boy - should we have him Circumcised?
I have not been told of any real advantages of having it done and right now
we are swayed towards not doing it, any thoughts??
thanks,
Mel
http://home.mindspring.com/~melis63/babyannouncement/
Nan
2004-11-21 22:49:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stormlady
And an uncircumsised penis does not look gross!! That is just silly talk
Well, this is a personal issue, don't you think??? I'm against circ
but the first time I saw an uncut penis it surprised me. Someone else
may very well think it looks "gross".

Nan
Leanne
2004-11-21 23:54:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nan
Post by Stormlady
And an uncircumsised penis does not look gross!! That is just silly talk
Well, this is a personal issue, don't you think??? I'm against circ
but the first time I saw an uncut penis it surprised me. Someone else
may very well think it looks "gross".
yeah, but is that a reason to chop it off??

I dont like my pudgy (hehe) fingers, but i dont chop them off!

( I see where your coming from though )
--
Leanne
--------------------------------
Before you were conceived I wanted you,
Before you were born I loved you,
Before you were here an hour I would die for you,
This is the miracle of life.

http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/lstacherski/album?.dir=/1b24&.src=ph&.tok=phycXACBNCUuF54J
Nan
2004-11-22 00:40:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leanne
Post by Nan
Post by Stormlady
And an uncircumsised penis does not look gross!! That is just silly talk
Well, this is a personal issue, don't you think??? I'm against circ
but the first time I saw an uncut penis it surprised me. Someone else
may very well think it looks "gross".
yeah, but is that a reason to chop it off??
Not to me, but it might be for someone else.
Post by Leanne
I dont like my pudgy (hehe) fingers, but i dont chop them off!
I can think of lots of things about myself that I don't like ;-)
Post by Leanne
( I see where your coming from though )
Good, cuz my point was against anyone saying that it looking "gross"
was silly talk. It's not "silly talk" if someone does indeed find it
offensive.

Nan
Mum of Two
2004-11-22 01:18:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nan
Post by Stormlady
And an uncircumsised penis does not look gross!! That is just silly talk
Well, this is a personal issue, don't you think??? I'm against circ
but the first time I saw an uncut penis it surprised me. Someone else
may very well think it looks "gross".
That's a good point. I have a little brother who is intact, but until
looking at this website had never seen an adult intact penis.
http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/33-color.htm (Just a note, this site
is NOT porn, but it does contain numerous photos of male genitalia if that
bothers anyone).
To be honest, a lot of them looked gross to me...but my DH is circ'd and I
think ALL penises are pretty gross and funny looking except when erect, when
they can become interesting and appealing...
I think testicles are some of the ugliest, funniest looking things around,
but does that mean all men should be castrated? I think not....they're a
fascinating piece of anatomy, and MKP would be kind of empty without them
;-)
--
Amy,
Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02,
& Ana born screaming 30/06/04
email: barton . souto @ clear . net . nz (join the dots!)
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/c/carlos2002/
Nan
2004-11-22 01:19:56 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:18:29 +1300, "Mum of Two"
Post by Mum of Two
Post by Nan
Post by Stormlady
And an uncircumsised penis does not look gross!! That is just silly talk
Well, this is a personal issue, don't you think??? I'm against circ
but the first time I saw an uncut penis it surprised me. Someone else
may very well think it looks "gross".
That's a good point. I have a little brother who is intact, but until
looking at this website had never seen an adult intact penis.
http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/33-color.htm (Just a note, this site
is NOT porn, but it does contain numerous photos of male genitalia if that
bothers anyone).
To be honest, a lot of them looked gross to me...but my DH is circ'd and I
think ALL penises are pretty gross and funny looking except when erect, when
they can become interesting and appealing...
Yep, I can't say I've ever thought they looked particularly attractive
;-)

Nan
Lindy
2004-11-23 16:35:53 UTC
Permalink
first of all, this is all my opinion so when you respond to my posts id
appreciate it if you didnt act like your opinions is better than mine.
to stormlady, baby pee is sterile so it doesnt hurt when they pee. the
doctor told us that. and i think it looks gross. dont say that is just
silly to say that because it is my opinion and ive seen an uncircumsised
penis on an adult and i thought i was going to puke.
to todd, our baby didnt cry. the doctor said he slept through the whole
thing.
also it didnt take 4 weeks to heal, it took about 1 week and it was full
healed, except for a little swelling which was gone in another week.
so since this is my personal opinion and everyone else can have theres
how about you dont dis my post this time. he asked for our opinion and i
gave mine.

http://community.webtv.net/lindo_84/LindysPictures
http://community.webtv.net/lindo_84/NoahsBabyPage
Nan
2004-11-23 16:46:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lindy
first of all, this is all my opinion so when you respond to my posts id
appreciate it if you didnt act like your opinions is better than mine.
to stormlady, baby pee is sterile so it doesnt hurt when they pee. the
doctor told us that. and i think it looks gross. dont say that is just
silly to say that because it is my opinion and ive seen an uncircumsised
penis on an adult and i thought i was going to puke.
to todd, our baby didnt cry. the doctor said he slept through the whole
thing.
also it didnt take 4 weeks to heal, it took about 1 week and it was full
healed, except for a little swelling which was gone in another week.
so since this is my personal opinion and everyone else can have theres
how about you dont dis my post this time. he asked for our opinion and i
gave mine.
Well, it *is* usenet, and people are entitled to say whatever they
want..... even if I think they should pull their necks in and not
attack you. But, this is a very controversial topic and you will find
that it, along with others such as formula feeding do tend to pull out
the worst in people.
If people want to defend their right to attack your choices, then
you're going to have to understand that, and ignore them. Some people
just can't have a conversation or discussion without attacking.

Nan
Ericka Kammerer
2004-11-23 17:45:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lindy
to stormlady, baby pee is sterile so it doesnt hurt when they pee. the
doctor told us that.
Opinions are one thing, but the above statement is a matter
of fact, and it is inaccurate. Whether it is sterile has no
impact on whether it hurts when babies pee. Baby urine is no more
or less sterile than adult urine, and if you ask anyone who's
been circ'ed when older they will assure you that it does, in
fact, hurt.

Best wishes,
Ericka
Tatjana Pantic
2004-11-23 18:33:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ericka Kammerer
Post by Lindy
to stormlady, baby pee is sterile so it doesnt hurt when they pee. the
doctor told us that.
Opinions are one thing, but the above statement is a matter
of fact, and it is inaccurate. Whether it is sterile has no
impact on whether it hurts when babies pee. Baby urine is no more
or less sterile than adult urine, and if you ask anyone who's
been circ'ed when older they will assure you that it does, in
fact, hurt.
I can tell you that it hurt so bad after my episiotomy, I could only
pee in the shower for a few days :-( (Back then I didn't know the
trick with squeeze bottle.)

--

Tanja

Mommy to Tamara (27 Dec 1998) and
Stefan (19 May 2003)
Tori M.
2004-11-23 19:06:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tatjana Pantic
Post by Ericka Kammerer
Post by Lindy
to stormlady, baby pee is sterile so it doesnt hurt when they pee. the
doctor told us that.
Opinions are one thing, but the above statement is a matter
of fact, and it is inaccurate. Whether it is sterile has no
impact on whether it hurts when babies pee. Baby urine is no more
or less sterile than adult urine, and if you ask anyone who's
been circ'ed when older they will assure you that it does, in
fact, hurt.
I can tell you that it hurt so bad after my episiotomy, I could only
pee in the shower for a few days :-( (Back then I didn't know the
trick with squeeze bottle.)
The squeeze bottle actualy did nothing for me.. I finaly figured out that if
I leaned forward it did not hit the sore spots. That said Xavier never
showed signs of discomfort when he peed. Everything healed well. He was
born on Wed. he was circed after noon on fri.. he was basicly healed by
Monday. That is when I stopped using the Vasaline anyway.. His Ambilical
cord fell off Tuesday (day 6) so maybe he is just a good healer since the
spot where they put the internal monitor healed up quickly as well.

Tori
Todd Gastaldo
2004-11-23 18:11:17 UTC
Permalink
THE NATURAL PENIS: ARE BRITISH FEMALES PUKING?

See the very end of this post...
Post by Lindy
first of all, this is all my opinion so when you respond to my posts id
appreciate it if you didnt act like your opinions is better than mine.
Lindy, I am "acting" like the mutilation is an MD felony because it is.
That the medico-"legal" "just us" system is protecting the child abusers is
also an act. They don't call it the "just us" system for nothing. We are
not all equal under the law. MDs can tell the most egregious LIES (eg.
"babies can't feel pain") and mutilate babies en masse - and get away with
it...

Babies scream and writhe and bleed and sometimes die or get infected and
lose their penises.

Parents need to hear this as they consider the decision to pay someone to
abuse their infant sons...
Post by Lindy
to stormlady, baby pee is sterile so it doesnt hurt when they pee. the
doctor told us that.
Soon after I exposed the fact that pediatricians had just perpetuated
American medicine's phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology, the Chief
Rabbi of Israel was quoted in the Jerusalem Post saying that using
anesthetic was OK - and Jews never said babies can't feel pain. That is the
article where I read that urinating burns the wound.

I know that "burning on urination" is can be experienced when the urethra is
inflamed - so it seems likely that a fresh penile wound in a diaper might
also be painful on urination.

There is also the matter of diapers holding urine and feces near the wound,
potentially for prolonged periods.
Post by Lindy
and i think it looks gross. dont say that is just
silly to say that because it is my opinion and ive seen an uncircumsised
penis on an adult and i thought i was going to puke.
LOL! I myself think my mutilated penis looks normal! A natural penis looks
WAY weird to me! Always has!

This is probably the source of the "lockeroom" argument for circumcising all
boys "so they won't be embarrassed."

Personally, I would rather EDUCATE intact boys - tell them not to make fun
of the mutilated boys - it wasn't their fault they were mutilated - maybe
their moms just thought the mutilation looked better - LOL!
Post by Lindy
to todd, our baby didnt cry. the doctor said he slept through the whole
thing.
Lindy, some babies gasp and go unconscious. (Some medical students faint at
the sight of a circ it is so revolting.)

I think your baby was rendered unconscious by the pain. I don't think he
was sleeping. It's just my opinion - but I think it is superior to yours
because it accords with reality.

If your baby slept through having his foreskin literally ripped and sliced
from his body I think that's abnormal - extremely abnormal.

That said - the ancient Jewish ritual is FAST and leaves most of the
foreskin on the penis - but even a quick amputation of "just" the foreskin
tip would rather quickly wake the baby. Just a guess. (I favor a religious
exemption from the child abuse laws for the ancient Jewish ritual.)

Oh - I should also note: There is a Jewish MD at Oregon Health Sciences
University/OHSU - he used to be (may still be) the chief of obstetrics. He
said he injected anesthesia before the surgery at Bris milah's. Injecting
the anesthesia would make the baby scream - then perhaps go to sleep
eventually - in time for the amputation "ceremony" - and perhaps sleep
through the amputation because of the anesthesia.

And there is the matter of babies being born under the mom's general
anesthesia years ago - the babies themselves being anesthestized - "floppy
babies"... These babies did not react to the ripping and slicing - but it
was not because they didn't feel pain - it was because they weren't FEELING
any pain - because mom's anesthesia had crossed the placenta...
Post by Lindy
also it didnt take 4 weeks to heal, it took about 1 week and it was full
healed, except for a little swelling which was gone in another week.
so since this is my personal opinion and everyone else can have theres
how about you dont dis my post this time. he asked for our opinion and i
gave mine.
http://community.webtv.net/lindo_84/LindysPictures
http://community.webtv.net/lindo_84/NoahsBabyPage
I am glad you gave your opinion, Lindy....

It stimulated me to give mine.

American medicine's most frequent surgical behavior toward males is an
obvious felony that sometimes kills and causes penile loss - but usually
"only" makes babies scream and writhe and bleed.

I am sorry the natural human penis makes you puke.

Again, my own mutilated penis looks normal to me - but it was mutilated - I
got used to it as "normal" - but I am quite abnormal relative to the
majority of men on the planet who were not strapped down for the mutilation.

Which brings me to perhaps the most important point: Stopping the
mutilation not only prevents screams it PRESERVES the surgery as a CHOICE
that males can make for THEMSELVES as adults.

I know it's "small potatoes" but stopping the infant screams would instantly
save America an estimated $400 million dollars per year - and the savings
would likely be permanent since (for example) when the British NHS stopped
paying for the surgery its frequency plummeted to near zero.

British males are either putting up with a lot of British female puking - or
most British females like the natural human penis just fine...

Todd
Chotii
2004-11-23 19:22:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Gastaldo
THE NATURAL PENIS: ARE BRITISH FEMALES PUKING?
See the very end of this post...
Post by Lindy
and i think it looks gross. dont say that is just
silly to say that because it is my opinion and ive seen an uncircumsised
penis on an adult and i thought i was going to puke.
LOL! I myself think my mutilated penis looks normal! A natural penis
looks WAY weird to me! Always has!
You, my friend, are a perfect candidate for restoration. While
skin-stretching is a frequent part of some medical treatments, such as when
skin grafts will be necessary (usually involving the insertion of an
inflatable 'bladder' under the skin), the flesh tube enclosing the penis is
more complex than ordinary skin, since it includes fascia and peripenic
(dartos) muscle tissue. These grow much more slowly under tension than skin
does. If it were only skin, you could theoretically grown enough skin to
replace a natural-looking 'fauxskin' in a few weeks, or a month. But it is a
longer process, usually 1-3 years for reliable flaccid coverage (depending
on whether you are a 'shower' or a 'grower', how tight your cut, how
consistent with tugging you were, and other factors).

Hey Todd....want to look weird? ;) I can also tell you this: some of the
guys on the list I'm on are in their late 60's and 70's, and claim that
since they began restoring, they have recovered much of the sensitivity they
enjoyed in younger days (and the improved sex life that goes with it.) I
have a hard time imagining a 70 year old guy having sex, but these guys say
they quite enjoy themselves. So there's another way to be weird. :D
Post by Todd Gastaldo
Post by Lindy
to todd, our baby didnt cry. the doctor said he slept through the whole
thing.
Lindy, some babies gasp and go unconscious. (Some medical students faint
at the sight of a circ it is so revolting.)
I think your baby was rendered unconscious by the pain. I don't think he
was sleeping. It's just my opinion - but I think it is superior to yours
because it accords with reality.
One thing we know about infants is that, in the face of overwhelming
stimuli, they will shut down. They will 'go to sleep' in self defense. I'm
willing to believe that a baby might be brought back to momma asleep and
apparently unhurt, but this is not evidence that no hurt has occurred.
Rather, it may well be evidence that overwhelming hurt *has* occurred.
(Depending on the analgesia used, of course, the pain may well be reduced.)
It's also possible the doctor didn't quite tell the truth. It's not unheard
of for doctors, or nurses, to reassure parents with trite meaningless
phrases such as "It wasn't so bad" "he hardly felt a thing". Considering
that there are a number of women on the pregnancy newsgroup who have endured
unanesthetised cesarean section surgeries, and had their doctors tell them
"You can't feel that, it's just pressure".....I have no idea why we can
believe that if some doctors can do that, other doctors might not downplay
other pain felt by other people, particularly ones who cannot speak to
describe their experiences.

--angela


I think it a great shame to cause, in 15 minutes, an alteration to someone's
body which will take 1-3 years (minimum) to undo. If ever.
wc
2004-11-24 02:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Chotil or something like that wrote:
'
Post by Chotii
that there are a number of women on the pregnancy newsgroup who have endured
unanesthetised cesarean section surgeries, and had their doctors tell them
"You can't feel that, it's just pressure".. <

That's rich. I have been an anesthetist for over 40 years, and am
ready to hang it up. A "unanesthetised" c-section doesn't happen
unless the infant is in extremis, such as a prolapsed cord, or
ruptured uterus. Even then, the surgeon would quickly infiltrate
with local anesthesia before the scalpel was used. Often, women
with a spinal anesthetic or epidural block in place will indeed
feel pressure and manipulation, but the area is numb, pain receptors
are not active due to the anesthetic. Whoever told those wild
tales in a newsgroup are doing just that, telling wild tales.
Women often say they will never forget the pain of childbirth. Ah,
but they do forget. That's why they have that second child, and
on and on. Pain cannot be rememberd by anyone. The fact that
one had pain, and it was excruciating is recalled, but not the actual
pain.

and on the subject of circs . . . babies cry, they scream, they are
not anesthetized. They are tied down on (now) disposable circ boards
and cannot move, and their little "dicks" are trimmed.

My grandfather, my dad, my brother, myself, and my son are uncircum
cised. My son is a physician in Canada. The entire tribe of us would
think it weird indeed if one guy had his schwantz brissssssed. I don't
give a fig what women "like" -- men like their penis to be the way they
were created. Those who have been butchered don't know any better.



Will ;-)
Chotii
2004-11-24 02:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chotii
'
Post by Chotii
that there are a number of women on the pregnancy newsgroup who have
endured
unanesthetised cesarean section surgeries, and had their doctors tell them
"You can't feel that, it's just pressure".. <
That's rich. I have been an anesthetist for over 40 years, and am
ready to hang it up. A "unanesthetised" c-section doesn't happen
unless the infant is in extremis, such as a prolapsed cord, or
ruptured uterus. Even then, the surgeon would quickly infiltrate
with local anesthesia before the scalpel was used. Often, women
with a spinal anesthetic or epidural block in place will indeed
feel pressure and manipulation, but the area is numb, pain receptors
are not active due to the anesthetic. Whoever told those wild
tales in a newsgroup are doing just that, telling wild tales.
Mmm. Would you say that to their faces, in person? Some of them got knocked
out with a general - which was merciful, of course - but some of them simply
endured, thinking they were going to die every second. Would you really tell
a woman to her face that she didn't feel what she felt?

It's easy for someone to say this about faceless, nameless "women" in
person. But I met some of these women in person, face to face. I see no
reason to disbelieve.

--angela
wc
2004-11-24 04:17:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chotii
Post by Chotii
'
Post by Chotii
that there are a number of women on the pregnancy newsgroup who have
endured
unanesthetised cesarean section surgeries, and had their doctors tell them
"You can't feel that, it's just pressure".. <
That's rich. I have been an anesthetist for over 40 years, and am
ready to hang it up. A "unanesthetised" c-section doesn't happen
unless the infant is in extremis, such as a prolapsed cord, or
ruptured uterus. Even then, the surgeon would quickly infiltrate
with local anesthesia before the scalpel was used. Often, women
with a spinal anesthetic or epidural block in place will indeed
feel pressure and manipulation, but the area is numb, pain receptors
are not active due to the anesthetic. Whoever told those wild
tales in a newsgroup are doing just that, telling wild tales.
Mmm. Would you say that to their faces, in person? Some of them got knocked
out with a general - which was merciful, of course - but some of them simply
endured, thinking they were going to die every second. Would you really tell
a woman to her face that she didn't feel what she felt?
It's easy for someone to say this about faceless, nameless "women" in
person. But I met some of these women in person, face to face. I see no
reason to disbelieve.
--angela
Angela . . .
You don't read very well, do you. I posted from forty years, that is
40 (plus) years in the operating/delivery rooms. I have seen some
horror stories. I have not seen a surgeon take a scalpel to a
women without local anesthesia. It takes mere seconds in the hands
of an experienced surgeon. It isn't *easy* for someone to say this about
faceless women. My patients were never faceless women. You are a
faceless woman, Angela. You are a liar.
Ericka Kammerer
2004-11-24 04:39:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by wc
Post by Chotii
Post by Chotii
'
Post by Chotii
that there are a number of women on the pregnancy newsgroup who have
endured
unanesthetised cesarean section surgeries, and had their doctors tell them
"You can't feel that, it's just pressure".. <
That's rich. I have been an anesthetist for over 40 years, and am
ready to hang it up. A "unanesthetised" c-section doesn't happen
unless the infant is in extremis, such as a prolapsed cord, or
ruptured uterus. Even then, the surgeon would quickly infiltrate
with local anesthesia before the scalpel was used. Often, women
with a spinal anesthetic or epidural block in place will indeed
feel pressure and manipulation, but the area is numb, pain receptors
are not active due to the anesthetic. Whoever told those wild
tales in a newsgroup are doing just that, telling wild tales.
Mmm. Would you say that to their faces, in person? Some of them got
knocked out with a general - which was merciful, of course - but some
of them simply endured, thinking they were going to die every second.
Would you really tell a woman to her face that she didn't feel what
she felt?
It's easy for someone to say this about faceless, nameless "women" in
person. But I met some of these women in person, face to face. I see
no reason to disbelieve.
Angela . . .
You don't read very well, do you. I posted from forty years, that is
40 (plus) years in the operating/delivery rooms. I have seen some
horror stories. I have not seen a surgeon take a scalpel to a
women without local anesthesia. It takes mere seconds in the hands
of an experienced surgeon. It isn't *easy* for someone to say this about
faceless women. My patients were never faceless women. You are a
faceless woman, Angela. You are a liar.
Ummm...no she's not. There are at least three women
who have been regular posters on this newsgroup who have had
failed anesthesia during their c-sections. Some had doctors
who took their protestations seriously and gave them general
anesthesia for the remainder of the operation and others were
awake and in excruciating pain for the remainder. I happen to
know one of those women personally, and she would be outraged
at the notion that it didn't happen to her. Angela never said
that no anesthesia was *attempted*. She simply said they
were unanesthetized--as in, they were able to feel the pain
of the surgery. Any anesthesiologist or anesthetist who
denies that inadequate anesthesia sometimes happens probably should
have hung it up years ago.

Best wishes,
Ericka
Dave {Reply Address in.sig}
2004-11-24 07:58:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by wc
Angela . . .
You don't read very well, do you. I posted from forty years, that is
40 (plus) years in the operating/delivery rooms. I have seen some
horror stories. I have not seen a surgeon take a scalpel to a
women without local anesthesia. It takes mere seconds in the hands
of an experienced surgeon. It isn't *easy* for someone to say this about
faceless women. My patients were never faceless women. You are a
faceless woman, Angela. You are a liar.
You're missing the point. It's not that anaesthetic wasn't administered,
it's the few rare cases where it didn't take effect for whatever reason.
There have been cases of women given a general anaesthetic where they were
paralysed but still otherwise fully aware of what was going on, even to the
point of being able to recite what had happened when they were supposedly
asleep. Some were lucky in that the anaesthetist realised the problem (via
reactions on various monitors) and increased the dose, but others didn't.
--
Dave
mail da ***@llondel.org (without the space)
http://www.llondel.org/
So many gadgets, so little time...
Mum of Two
2004-11-24 03:05:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chotii
Post by Todd Gastaldo
THE NATURAL PENIS: ARE BRITISH FEMALES PUKING?
See the very end of this post...
Post by Lindy
and i think it looks gross. dont say that is just
silly to say that because it is my opinion and ive seen an uncircumsised
penis on an adult and i thought i was going to puke.
LOL! I myself think my mutilated penis looks normal! A natural penis
looks WAY weird to me! Always has!
You, my friend, are a perfect candidate for restoration. While
skin-stretching is a frequent part of some medical treatments, such as
when skin grafts will be necessary (usually involving the insertion of an
inflatable 'bladder' under the skin), the flesh tube enclosing the penis
is more complex than ordinary skin, since it includes fascia and peripenic
(dartos) muscle tissue. These grow much more slowly under tension than
skin does. If it were only skin, you could theoretically grown enough skin
to replace a natural-looking 'fauxskin' in a few weeks, or a month. But it
is a longer process, usually 1-3 years for reliable flaccid coverage
(depending on whether you are a 'shower' or a 'grower', how tight your
cut, how consistent with tugging you were, and other factors).
I wish DH would consider this, or better still, had not been cut in the
first place :-(
I feel a sense of loss for him, and for me too, that I'll never know what
it's like to sleep with an intact man. But I don't discuss it with him
anymore, the only time it was ever brought up was during my pregnancy with
DS. It causes him too much pain, it's like he remembers, but not
consciously. He wouldn't be able to talk about it like Todd does.
--
Amy,
Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02,
& Ana born screaming 30/06/04
email: barton . souto @ clear . net . nz (join the dots!)
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/c/carlos2002/
Nikki
2004-11-24 04:18:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mum of Two
I feel a sense of loss for him, and for me too, that I'll never know
what it's like to sleep with an intact man.
I didn't realize there would be any difference at all for the woman.
--
Nikki
Child
2004-11-24 05:52:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nikki
Post by Mum of Two
I feel a sense of loss for him, and for me too, that I'll never know
what it's like to sleep with an intact man.
I didn't realize there would be any difference at all for the woman.
There really isn't. When an uncut dick is hard, the head comes out of the
foreskin and they look pretty similar to cut dicks. Can't feel any
difference during intercourse. Can manipulate extra skin a bit with hand or
mouth.
Mum of Two
2004-11-23 18:59:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lindy
first of all, this is all my opinion so when you respond to my posts id
appreciate it if you didnt act like your opinions is better than mine.
to stormlady, baby pee is sterile so it doesnt hurt when they pee.
Oh come on, I'm sorry but that's BS. All urine is sterile unless there is a
urinary tract infection or it gets contaminated on the way out, but urine
stings because it tends to be acidic. You'd know that if you'd delivered
naturally.
--
Amy,
Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02,
& Ana born screaming 30/06/04
email: barton . souto @ clear . net . nz (join the dots!)
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/c/carlos2002/
H Schinske
2004-11-23 23:12:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lindy
first of all, this is all my opinion so when you respond to my posts id
appreciate it if you didnt act like your opinions is better than mine.
to stormlady, baby pee is sterile so it doesnt hurt when they pee.
What on earth does sterility have to do with whether it stings?? Bleach kills
most germs, so it's probably sterile, too. Hydrochloric acid. You get the idea.

--Helen
Mum of Two
2004-11-24 02:59:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mum of Two
Post by Lindy
first of all, this is all my opinion so when you respond to my posts id
appreciate it if you didnt act like your opinions is better than mine.
to stormlady, baby pee is sterile so it doesnt hurt when they pee.
Oh come on, I'm sorry but that's BS. All urine is sterile unless there is
a urinary tract infection or it gets contaminated on the way out, but
urine stings because it tends to be acidic. You'd know that if you'd
delivered naturally.
Correction: I meant to say 'delivered vaginally'. Even with no tears, no
episiotomy, urine stings like nothing on earth. I shudder to think how it
feels to pee from a surgically mutilated penis.
--
Amy,
Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02,
& Ana born screaming 30/06/04
email: barton . souto @ clear . net . nz (join the dots!)
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/c/carlos2002/
Chookie
2004-11-24 10:55:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lindy
and i think it looks gross. dont say that is just
silly to say that because it is my opinion and ive seen an uncircumsised
penis on an adult and i thought i was going to puke.
Now that is just OTT. A bit more skin than you've been used to seeing and
you're ready to puke?? Are you ready to puke whenever you see a "gross"
person??
--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Life is like a cigarette -- smoke it to the butt." -- Harvie Krumpet
Plissken
2004-11-21 20:29:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by melis
Hi, we are expecting in less that 4 weeks and we choose not to know the sex
of our future baby, But If it is a boy - should we have him Circumcised?
I have not been told of any real advantages of having it done and right now
we are swayed towards not doing it, any thoughts??
thanks,
Mel
This is a very personal decision! My advice to you is to do your research
about the pros and cons of circumcision and base your decision on what you
find. Having said that I will tell you my personal opinion. This is just my
opinion and I totally respect the choices of other as to what they do with
their own children.

If I have a son this time around I will absolutely not get him circumcised.
In Canada it is considered an unnecessary operation and you have to pay (a
few hundred dollars) to get the procedure done. I just don't see the point
in removing a part of a boys penis that he was born with. If men were not
meant to have a foreskin they wouldn't be born with them. (once again JMO!)
I wouldn't feel right about putting my baby through that kind of pain. Some
people believe that babies can't feel the pain or it doesn't matter because
they don't remember the pain. Of course babies are going to feel pain, that
is just ridiculous IMO, and just because someone won't remember pain later
on in life doesn't make it okay to inflict pain upon them.

My DH is circumcised and he was very pro-circumcision with my first
pregnancy. Thank goodness we had a girl :o) I have since convinced him that
it is not a necessary procedure and we won't be doing it. The main reason
that turned his opinion is the circumcision rates among baby boys. While in
the US it is still more common to circumcise, it is more uncommon in the
rest of the world. I think the circumcision rates in Canada at the moment
are 20%. So while my DH wanted his son to look like him, he now realizes
that the majority of men are not circumcised.

There is no reason an uncircumcised penis cannot be kept clean. Some people
say that men who are uncircumcised have problems later on. Sure some do but
I'm willing to bet that the numbers are fairly low. A friend of mine said
she got her baby circumcised because her grandpa had to get circumcised at
the age of 80. But once again, I'm betting that doesn't occur very often.

Anyway, once again JMO and it is a very personal decision. I hope I haven't
offended anyone! I'm just thankful I've convinced my husband we won't get it
done should we have a boy this time around.

Nadene
(who is very tired and doesn't have time to re-read this and hope it makes
sense!)
Dagny
2004-11-22 04:04:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Plissken
A friend of mine said
she got her baby circumcised because her grandpa had to get circumcised at
the age of 80. But once again, I'm betting that doesn't occur very often.
Is there anyone else here who thinks that reasoning is bizarre?

-- Dagny
Plissken
2004-11-22 04:45:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dagny
Post by Plissken
A friend of mine said
she got her baby circumcised because her grandpa had to get circumcised at
the age of 80. But once again, I'm betting that doesn't occur very often.
Is there anyone else here who thinks that reasoning is bizarre?
-- Dagny
Very bizarre. I felt like saying, well my grandpa had his appendix out at 60
does that mean I should remove my baby's appendix now? I think what she was
trying to say is that its better to have it done now than have to get it
done in adulthood. It was ridiculous of her to base it on one circumstance.
You would think, being a nurse she would have researched it a bit more. I do
think her husband was pushing for it big time as well and she is a bit of a
pushover when it comes to him.
Melania
2004-11-22 18:10:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Plissken
Post by Dagny
Post by Plissken
A friend of mine said
she got her baby circumcised because her grandpa had to get circumcised
at
Post by Dagny
Post by Plissken
the age of 80. But once again, I'm betting that doesn't occur very
often.
Post by Dagny
Is there anyone else here who thinks that reasoning is bizarre?
-- Dagny
Very bizarre. I felt like saying, well my grandpa had his appendix out at 60
does that mean I should remove my baby's appendix now? I think what she was
trying to say is that its better to have it done now than have to get it
done in adulthood.
<snip>
DH isn't, and that was a researched decision by his father, a doctor,
who had been (as were virtually all men in the '50s in Canada, afaik).
Both my brothers are BUT: brother #1 my parents decided not to, and
then when he was 2 he started developing a lot of infections and
generally the foreskin looked tight and red and sore. Mom said it just
looked like the foreskin was too tight - he couldn't even pee
properly. He was obviously in a lot of discomfort, and mom took him to
the doctor. Apparently the conversation went like this: "I think my
son needs to be circumsised." "oh, no, we don't do that anymore, and
there's no medical reason to do so." "Well, here, take a look at his.
. ." "Oh! Yep, that needs to come off!" So, my brother was circumcised
at age 2. When brother #2 came along, they had him done partly because
they worried the same thing would happen (although it is EXTREMELY
rare), and partly so they would look the same.

This experience that my brother had, however, did not prompt me to
have my own son circumcised, and now he's almost 2 and everything's
fine. I am glad that we decided not to have it done. I can certainly
attest, based on experience with both, that it does *not* mean a
cleaner penis, as long as proper hygeine is observed, and while I
agree that generally genitalia are funny-looking, to say that a
natural piece of skin is "gross" seems silly to me. Lots of body parts
are funny-looking (really look at an ear sometime!), but if they're
clean and healthy, they're not gross.

all the best,
Melania
Irrational Number
2004-11-22 05:20:27 UTC
Permalink
[...] So while my DH wanted his son to look like him,
This is the reason I most don't understand.
Women don't go around saying, I want my daughter's
genitalia to look like mine... ;) Do sons and
fathers look at each other's genitalia often?
(Other than fathers changing their little boys'
diapers, of course...)

-- Anita --
Tori M.
2004-11-22 05:35:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Irrational Number
[...] So while my DH wanted his son to look like him,
This is the reason I most don't understand.
Women don't go around saying, I want my daughter's
genitalia to look like mine... ;) Do sons and
fathers look at each other's genitalia often?
(Other than fathers changing their little boys'
diapers, of course...)
-- Anita --
I dont think most men worry about their sons parts looking like theirs. We
chose to circ not because we wanted identical parts but for other reasons.
All of wich could be disputed as false reasons as well so I will just make
it easier to say You disagree with me i accept it lets still be friends;)

Tori
--
Bonnie 3/20/02
Xavier 10/27/04
nic
2004-11-23 01:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Irrational Number
[...] So while my DH wanted his son to look like him,
This is the reason I most don't understand.
Women don't go around saying, I want my daughter's
genitalia to look like mine... ;) Do sons and
fathers look at each other's genitalia often?
(Other than fathers changing their little boys'
diapers, of course...)
-- Anita --
The only place I could think of would be toilet training...
If son watched his father how to stand and pee over the toilet then son
might notice the differance between them but having said that by the same
tocken the son would be to young to understand the differance between them.



Nic
Ericka Kammerer
2004-11-23 01:57:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by nic
The only place I could think of would be toilet training...
If son watched his father how to stand and pee over the toilet then son
might notice the differance between them but having said that by the same
tocken the son would be to young to understand the differance between them.
Ummm...the differences between a grown man and a toddler
are likely *way* more salient at that point than the difference
between circ'ed and uncirc'ed.

Best wishes,
Ericka
Donna Metler
2004-11-23 02:28:03 UTC
Permalink
What I told my husband was that it was his choice, since I didn't have the
requisite organs. He looked it up online, shuddered, and decided at that
point that no son of his was going to be circumsized unless absolutely
necessary.
Todd Gastaldo
2004-11-23 18:21:45 UTC
Permalink
SHE HAD "THE REQUISITE ORGANS"...
Post by Donna Metler
What I told my husband was that it was his choice, since I didn't have the
requisite organs. He looked it up online, shuddered, and decided at that
point that no son of his was going to be circumsized unless absolutely
necessary.
I don't think one needs "requisite organs" to decide that the MD will not
(literally) rip and slice a tiny penis.

American MDs have told LIES ("prevents transmission of HIV/AIDS") to keep
the mass infant mutilation going...

See Pediatrician 'ethics' (Attn: Gesundheit et al.)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2908

Years ago, my eldest son's mother had the "requisite organs" (had the
"balls") to insist that my son not be mutilated.

It was a huge argument!

I'm glad that beautiful woman had the "requisite organs" to get her husband
past his stupid focus on his son's penis looking different than his...

Back then, one couldn't go online and actually watch a video of the grisly
mutilation.

Todd

PS I just posted some remarks about the "locker room" argument...

See The natural penis: Are British females puking?
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2968
s***@iloveagoodbook.com
2004-11-23 07:17:01 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:23:01 +1100, "nic" <www.schoolfriends.com.au>
Post by nic
Post by Irrational Number
[...] So while my DH wanted his son to look like him,
This is the reason I most don't understand.
Women don't go around saying, I want my daughter's
genitalia to look like mine... ;) Do sons and
fathers look at each other's genitalia often?
(Other than fathers changing their little boys'
diapers, of course...)
-- Anita --
The only place I could think of would be toilet training...
If son watched his father how to stand and pee over the toilet then son
might notice the differance between them but having said that by the same
tocken the son would be to young to understand the differance between them.
Nic
My son's don't care about differences. Youngest son (4 yrs) often asks
me about my penis and then I remind him that (being female) I don't
have one :) He then says "Oh yeah, I mean your "Bagina" (his pron. not
mine:)

Their Dad is large and circ'ed. Oldest son is average and intact,
youngest son is somewhat big and intact. When they "cross swords" at
a urinalor in our bathroom they just accept that *EVERYONE* is
different.

Their noses don't match each other's , their teeth don't match each
other's so why should their penises match????

Stephie
Child
2004-11-24 05:55:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Irrational Number
[...] So while my DH wanted his son to look like him,
This is the reason I most don't understand.
Women don't go around saying, I want my daughter's
genitalia to look like mine... ;) Do sons and
fathers look at each other's genitalia often?
(Other than fathers changing their little boys'
diapers, of course...)
I don't think its literally "look like mine", but more "I like my
circumcised penis and think my son will like his too."
Child
2004-11-21 20:32:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by melis
Hi, we are expecting in less that 4 weeks and we choose not to know the
sex of our future baby, But If it is a boy - should we have him
Circumcised?
I have not been told of any real advantages of having it done and right
now we are swayed towards not doing it, any thoughts??
thanks,
Mel
http://home.mindspring.com/~melis63/babyannouncement/
Here is a page which discusses the pro's and cons
http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/article.htm
Chotii
2004-11-21 20:33:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by melis
Hi, we are expecting in less that 4 weeks and we choose not to know the
sex of our future baby, But If it is a boy - should we have him
Circumcised?
I have not been told of any real advantages of having it done and right
now we are swayed towards not doing it, any thoughts??
thanks,
I would never recommend that it be done, except for medical reasons. If need
be (and sometimes there is a need), it can always be done.

It cannot be *undone*.

It is his body, not yours. He must live the rest of his life with your
choice, if you have him cut (but will have a variety of choices if you do
not). Permanent, essentially cosmetic body alterations should be left to the
individual to choose, or not choose (barring a diagnosed medical problem).

True, with patience and effort, the skin of the shaft can be stretched to
recreate a prepuce to some degree, but some parts of the prepuce can never
be replaced. The frenulum, which is one of the most richly ennervated part
of the penis (that's the little ridgey bit below the 'V' at the base of the
head), is always damaged and sometimes entirely removed during circumcision.
This can never be recovered.

It is not painless, no matter what Lindy tells you. Anaesthetics help some,
but not entirely. It is an awful thing to watch, and I recommend strongly
that you do watch a video of a typical medical circumcision before you
choose to have one performed upon your child. The prepuce is attached to
the head of the penis in infants, and must be torn away (think of tearing
away your fingernail, which is attached in a similar fashion). Then the
tissue is forced back and crushed with a tool. Shortly after that, it is cut
away. How much pain medication would *you* require for this not to hurt you?
Babies cannot be given that much. It's not safe for them. There is a risk
of bleeding (newborns cannot lose more than a teaspoon or two without risk
to their health), of infection, of removing too much and distorting the
penis in later years, of creating skin bridges. There is the risk of
'phantom pain'. There is the unquantifiable emotional impact of rendering
the child absolutely helpless, and *hurting* him over the course of long
minutes.

Here is the article at parentsplace.com:
http://www.parentsplace.com/babies/newborn/articles/0,,166626_439981,00.html?arrivalSA=1&cobrandRef=0&arrival_freqCap=1&pba=adid=12304527

Here is a video: http://www.intact.ca/vidphil.htm . If you can stand
watching it (and I recommend you do watch it, and make your husband watch it
too if he can stand it), then maybe you could stand watching such a thing be
done to your own baby. And....if you choose that, I hope you *will* go with
him, and be there for him, rather than handing him off to a nice nurse in
scrubs, who will take him away out of earshot, and bring him back "done".
If you make the choice, I really believe you should be there to see the
results of it.

Sometimes, yes, it does need to be done. My daughter needed 2 stomach
surgeries and a heart surgery. But nobody claimed it didn't hurt, and she
got full anaesthesia for her pain. Why should your child's genitals be any
different?

--angela
melis
2004-11-21 20:58:32 UTC
Permalink
I think that video of a baby being circumcised has sealed the deal NOT to
have him circumcised and that's assuming that it will be a boy.
http://www.intact.ca/video.html
Post by Chotii
Post by melis
Hi, we are expecting in less that 4 weeks and we choose not to know the
sex of our future baby, But If it is a boy - should we have him
Circumcised?
I have not been told of any real advantages of having it done and right
now we are swayed towards not doing it, any thoughts??
thanks,
I would never recommend that it be done, except for medical reasons. If
need be (and sometimes there is a need), it can always be done.
It cannot be *undone*.
It is his body, not yours. He must live the rest of his life with your
choice, if you have him cut (but will have a variety of choices if you do
not). Permanent, essentially cosmetic body alterations should be left to
the individual to choose, or not choose (barring a diagnosed medical
problem).
True, with patience and effort, the skin of the shaft can be stretched to
recreate a prepuce to some degree, but some parts of the prepuce can never
be replaced. The frenulum, which is one of the most richly ennervated
part of the penis (that's the little ridgey bit below the 'V' at the base
of the head), is always damaged and sometimes entirely removed during
circumcision. This can never be recovered.
It is not painless, no matter what Lindy tells you. Anaesthetics help
some, but not entirely. It is an awful thing to watch, and I recommend
strongly that you do watch a video of a typical medical circumcision
before you choose to have one performed upon your child. The prepuce is
attached to the head of the penis in infants, and must be torn away (think
of tearing away your fingernail, which is attached in a similar fashion).
Then the tissue is forced back and crushed with a tool. Shortly after
that, it is cut away. How much pain medication would *you* require for
this not to hurt you? Babies cannot be given that much. It's not safe for
them. There is a risk of bleeding (newborns cannot lose more than a
teaspoon or two without risk to their health), of infection, of removing
too much and distorting the penis in later years, of creating skin
bridges. There is the risk of 'phantom pain'. There is the unquantifiable
emotional impact of rendering the child absolutely helpless, and *hurting*
him over the course of long minutes.
http://www.parentsplace.com/babies/newborn/articles/0,,166626_439981,00.html?arrivalSA=1&cobrandRef=0&arrival_freqCap=1&pba=adid=12304527
Here is a video: http://www.intact.ca/vidphil.htm . If you can stand
watching it (and I recommend you do watch it, and make your husband watch
it too if he can stand it), then maybe you could stand watching such a
thing be done to your own baby. And....if you choose that, I hope you
*will* go with him, and be there for him, rather than handing him off to a
nice nurse in scrubs, who will take him away out of earshot, and bring him
back "done". If you make the choice, I really believe you should be there
to see the results of it.
Sometimes, yes, it does need to be done. My daughter needed 2 stomach
surgeries and a heart surgery. But nobody claimed it didn't hurt, and she
got full anaesthesia for her pain. Why should your child's genitals be any
different?
--angela
firedancer623
2004-11-21 20:57:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by melis
Hi, we are expecting in less that 4 weeks and we choose not to know the
sex of our future baby, But If it is a boy - should we have him
Circumcised?
I have not been told of any real advantages of having it done and right
now we are swayed towards not doing it, any thoughts??
thanks,
Mel
http://home.mindspring.com/~melis63/babyannouncement/
We did not do it to our 2 boys. I can't think of one valid reason to have it
done. Yes my husband is done and he too agreed that he'd rather have his
son's be as nature (or god, or whatever you believe) intended. No confusion
at ALL with our oldest son being different than Daddy (the baby is obviously
too young to notice or care, lol). He knows full well the difference in his
body and he was *appaled* that they actually do that to babies.

It's his body, why not let him make that choice for himself?

Kari
mom to Kaylie, Noah and Xander
nic
2004-11-21 21:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by melis
Hi, we are expecting in less that 4 weeks and we choose not to know the sex
of our future baby, But If it is a boy - should we have him Circumcised?
I have not been told of any real advantages of having it done and right now
we are swayed towards not doing it, any thoughts??
thanks,
Mel
http://home.mindspring.com/~melis63/babyannouncement/
no. my son isn't done.
And only about 5 % of babies born in our state are done.
And even then the doctors and nurses will give you information for and
againest, so you can make a informed choice.
(they never did this with me as I never wanted it done even when I was
pregnant )
The doctors don't make money from doing circumcisions therefore they want
the space and time to do more complex operations that make more money.

You just need to google in this newsgroup and a few others and you will find
heaps of fors or againests.

Goodluck with what you choose.

Nic
Todd Gastaldo
2004-11-21 21:48:30 UTC
Permalink
INFANT PENIS SLICING: PROFIT IS SMALL...
Post by nic
Post by melis
Hi, we are expecting in less that 4 weeks and we choose not to know the
sex
Post by melis
of our future baby, But If it is a boy - should we have him Circumcised?
I have not been told of any real advantages of having it done and right
now
Post by melis
we are swayed towards not doing it, any thoughts??
thanks,
Mel
http://home.mindspring.com/~melis63/babyannouncement/
no. my son isn't done.
And only about 5 % of babies born in our state are done.
And even then the doctors and nurses will give you information for and
againest, so you can make a informed choice.
In one of the states with most MDs, some nurses (CNMwives) perform the
partial penile amputation.

The California Medical Association/CMA may still officially (fraudulently)
refer to routine infant circumcision as "an effective public health
measure." (CMA Res 305-88)

See Most babies SCREAM...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2963
Post by nic
(they never did this with me as I never wanted it done even when I was
pregnant )
The doctors don't make money from doing circumcisions therefore they want
the space and time to do more complex operations that make more money.
Well, MDs don't make a lot of money - that's true...

American medicine makes an estimated $400 million dollars per year
performing the obvious felony.

Americans could spend that $400 million dollars per year on NECESSARY
surgeries.

KEY POINT: Not doing the surgery PRESERVES it as a CHOICE American males
can make for themselves in adulthood.

Todd
Post by nic
You just need to google in this newsgroup and a few others and you will find
heaps of fors or againests.
Goodluck with what you choose.
Nic
Tori M.
2004-11-21 21:47:22 UTC
Permalink
On the less popular side of this on the newsgroups.. We had Xavier circed
and he did fine with it. If we had not given up on breastfeeding in the
hospital it would not have been done until he had learned to feed better.
it took about 1/2 an hour because my midwife numbs everything up and she
likes to make sure that the meds have time to work before she gets in there.
The only time he cryed was in the hospital. He NEVER was bothered by
urinating but I plyed TONS of vasoline on it until day 5 when it looked
healed enough. We chose to have it done but if you dont have strong
feelings one way or the other I would say not to have it done. If later you
decide that Circ is important to you then go ahead but it is better to avoid
the guilt of something you can not change then guilt you can.. You can
always have it removed if something goes wrong but you cannt glue it back
on.. KWIM?
We had our midwife do it because she has a good rep. in the hospital for
being the best at it.. so the ease of his healing may have been due to the
skill of the midwife.

Tori
Post by melis
Hi, we are expecting in less that 4 weeks and we choose not to know the
sex of our future baby, But If it is a boy - should we have him
Circumcised?
I have not been told of any real advantages of having it done and right
now we are swayed towards not doing it, any thoughts??
thanks,
Mel
http://home.mindspring.com/~melis63/babyannouncement/
Vicky Bilaniuk
2004-11-22 02:26:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tori M.
We had our midwife do it because she has a good rep. in the hospital for
being the best at it.. so the ease of his healing may have been due to the
skill of the midwife.
I'm surprised your midwife did it. Here, I think they would refuse.
Mamma Mia
2004-11-21 22:21:43 UTC
Permalink
interestingly it just never came up as an option for us, we never even
considered it. i realise sometimes something goes wrong when they are older
and have to have it done. but we will cross that bridge if we get to it

if you want to get it done here, you have to seek out the jewish doctors, i
dont think many others even do it.

christine
Post by melis
Hi, we are expecting in less that 4 weeks and we choose not to know the
sex of our future baby, But If it is a boy - should we have him
Circumcised?
I have not been told of any real advantages of having it done and right
now we are swayed towards not doing it, any thoughts??
thanks,
Mel
http://home.mindspring.com/~melis63/babyannouncement/
Zaz
2004-11-21 22:57:58 UTC
Permalink
I would never circumcise a boy, unless for health reasons - not for
preemptive reasons, but for a real problem to which this would be the only
solution.

None of the men around me were circumcised, and they never had any
problem... Except for my FIL, who got circumcised at the age of 55 years
old. There was never any reason to do it earlier.

As for "appearance" reason, I am sorry, but I find this a lame excuse to
have a boy circumcised. When the time comes, if his girlfriend is so
grossed out about his penis that she leaves him, well... just as well!

I don't mean any disrespect for parents who choose otherwise, but I just
wouldn't do it.
Post by melis
Hi, we are expecting in less that 4 weeks and we choose not to know the
sex of our future baby, But If it is a boy - should we have him
Circumcised?
I have not been told of any real advantages of having it done and right
now we are swayed towards not doing it, any thoughts??
thanks,
Mel
http://home.mindspring.com/~melis63/babyannouncement/
Dave {Reply Address in.sig}
2004-11-21 23:11:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by melis
Hi, we are expecting in less that 4 weeks and we choose not to know the
sex of our future baby, But If it is a boy - should we have him
Circumcised? I have not been told of any real advantages of having it done
and right now we are swayed towards not doing it, any thoughts??
Don't have it done. There is more chance of damage to a newborn penis from a
botched circumcision than there is from any of the supposed ailments it
prevents.
--
Dave
mail da ***@llondel.org (without the space)
http://www.llondel.org/
So many gadgets, so little time...
Jo
2004-11-22 01:12:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by melis
Hi, we are expecting in less that 4 weeks and we choose not to know the sex
of our future baby, But If it is a boy - should we have him Circumcised?
I have not been told of any real advantages of having it done and right now
we are swayed towards not doing it, any thoughts??
thanks,
Mel
http://home.mindspring.com/~melis63/babyannouncement/
Would you consider circumcising a girl? Why would you consider it for a
boy?

Jo (RM)
emilymr
2004-11-22 03:12:41 UTC
Permalink
Well, I don't feel like the analogy between male and female circumcision is
very fair -- but at the same time, we didn't circumcise our son. We
figured that since there was no compelling medical or religious reason to
do it, why put him through unnecessary pain? He won't look like his daddy
but I'm sure he'll get over it... he doesn't look like just his daddy
anyways! ;) And even in the US, more and more people are choosing not to
circ their sons, so the locker room issue will soon be moot as well. I
completely agree with the posters who said that if you can't sit through
and watch it, you shouldn't have it done to your child.

Em
Chotii
2004-11-22 05:22:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by emilymr
Well, I don't feel like the analogy between male and female circumcision is
very fair -- but at the same time, we didn't circumcise our son.
It's true that there are degrees of 'female circumcision', and even a
clitoridectomy is more destructive in terms of terms of tissue removal than
the standard infant male circumcision without surgical errors (though the
glans penis is occasionally removed in circumcision)- and there is no
comparison to infibulation whatsoever - but, we're talking about *degrees*
here, not of the kind of action performed. The glans penis *is* forcibly
denuded, and tissue *is* surgically cut away - or else simply crushed and
left to slough off. Period. That is what is done. It's not done gently, it's
not usually done with adequate anaesthesia, and in 90% of the cases, it's
not done for medical reasons.

Male circumcision done on infants as a matter of routine is not the same as
female circumcisions done on pre-teen girls to make them "marriageable". But
neither is it inconsequential. I think sometimes when we say "But it's not
like what is done to women!" we forget that what is done to baby boys isn't
particularly glorious either.

--angela
emilymr
2004-11-22 06:15:33 UTC
Permalink
"Male circumcision done on infants as a matter of routine is not the same
as
female circumcisions done on pre-teen girls to make them "marriageable".
But
neither is it inconsequential. I think sometimes when we say "But it's
not
like what is done to women!" we forget that what is done to baby boys
isn't
particularly glorious either."

Yes, I agree. I think my main objection to the comparison between male
and female circumcision is that female circ. *is* done to make the
'marriageable' -- ie not enjoy sex -- and is part of a very hostile
environment toward women. Male circ., while misguided IMO, is not the
product of a similarly misogynist mindset. So I think the difference is
in degree, but also in substance. And I also think that bringing up
female circumcision as a corollary argument against male circumcision
tends not to convince anyone, so I try to stay away from that line of
reasoning.

Em
Anne
2004-11-22 07:59:26 UTC
Permalink
"emilymr"
Post by emilymr
Yes, I agree. I think my main objection to the comparison between male
and female circumcision is that female circ. *is* done to make the
'marriageable' -- ie not enjoy sex -- and is part of a very hostile
That's not true, women still enjoy sex after circumcision. Do you really
think that a man would enjoy sex with a woman that don't? I don't think
so...
BTW I'm not advocating it, I'm against all kinds of mutilation and my son is
not circumcised.
Anne
Chotii
2004-11-22 09:32:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anne
"emilymr"
Post by emilymr
Yes, I agree. I think my main objection to the comparison between male
and female circumcision is that female circ. *is* done to make the
'marriageable' -- ie not enjoy sex -- and is part of a very hostile
That's not true, women still enjoy sex after circumcision. Do you really
think that a man would enjoy sex with a woman that don't? I don't think
so...
Well. I suppose it depends entirely on what the man is looking for in his
sexual partner. Some men really don't care at all if the women they have sex
with *enjoy* it or not. Some men enjoy dominating, humiliating and hurting
women. Some men rape women. Some men are so ignorant of what gives a woman
pleasure that they assume that what feels good to them, must feel good to a
woman, and so do not exert any energy whatsoever beyond what works for them.
Some men simply don't care at all about any pleasure but their own. I mean,
how many jokes are there about the kind of man who climbs on, thrusts a
couple of times, grunts, rolls off, and falls asleep?

I suspect, in the cultures where female circumcision is common, especially
the more extreme forms of infibulation, and clitoridectomy, the woman's
pleasure is the last thing the average man worries about. They have other
concerns they rank more highly: fidelity, fertility, obedience...others too,
I suppose.

Those of us who live in cultures that encourate men to be thoughtful,
considerate husbands and lovers, who care for our pleasure and respect us if
we say no.....are probably a lucky, lucky minority in the history of the
world.

--angela
Jill
2004-11-22 16:42:20 UTC
Permalink
How did this thread get into my newsreader? Bad, bad Outlook Express
killfile! I killfiled this topic long ago, by subject line containing the
word. So this gets through, while people I DON'T have killfiled, I don't see
'em.

:-)
Anne
2004-11-22 19:57:29 UTC
Permalink
"Chotii"
Post by Chotii
Those of us who live in cultures that encourate men to be thoughtful,
considerate husbands and lovers, who care for our pleasure and respect us if
we say no.....are probably a lucky, lucky minority in the history of the
world.
I'm not jugging here their mentalities and moralities, even if I know many
of them, and if I don't agree with you. What I said is that they still enjoy
sex, on the contrary to the occidental believes, and they do. Cf. my answer
to Anita.

Anne
Irrational Number
2004-11-22 13:45:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anne
"emilymr"
Post by emilymr
Yes, I agree. I think my main objection to the comparison between male
and female circumcision is that female circ. *is* done to make the
'marriageable' -- ie not enjoy sex -- and is part of a very hostile
That's not true, women still enjoy sex after circumcision.
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.htm#a4

You should read the above. The whole point of female
circumcision is to make the women more "moral", to not
enjoy sex so that they would not have sex before
marriage, so they would not have affairs. Of course,
it doesn't matter if the men engage in such behaviour...

-- Anita --
Anne
2004-11-22 19:24:25 UTC
Permalink
"Irrational Number"
Post by Irrational Number
Post by Anne
That's not true, women still enjoy sex after circumcision.
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.htm#a4
You should read the above.
I quote: "90% of the infibulated women interviewed reported experiencing
orgasm"
You make the same poll in the american population and if you find that more
that 90% of the american women experience orgasm, then I would agree with
you!
Post by Irrational Number
The whole point of female
circumcision is to make the women more "moral", to not
enjoy sex so that they would not have sex before
marriage, so they would not have affairs. Of course,
it doesn't matter if the men engage in such behaviour...
Not true!
It's an awful mutilation but like I said before, they still enjoy sex!
Anne
Daye
2004-11-22 19:57:56 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:59:26 -0800, "Anne" <fazbeta at free dot fr>
Post by Anne
That's not true, women still enjoy sex after circumcision. Do you really
think that a man would enjoy sex with a woman that don't? I don't think
so...
You obviously have not known some of the bastards that I have. Yes,
there are men who don't care if you like it or if you are in pain or
if you are even conscious during the act.

--
Daye
Mum of Two
2004-11-23 19:09:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by emilymr
"Male circumcision done on infants as a matter of routine is not the same
as
female circumcisions done on pre-teen girls to make them "marriageable". But
neither is it inconsequential. I think sometimes when we say "But it's not
like what is done to women!" we forget that what is done to baby boys isn't
particularly glorious either."
Yes, I agree. I think my main objection to the comparison between male
and female circumcision is that female circ. *is* done to make the
'marriageable' -- ie not enjoy sex -- and is part of a very hostile
environment toward women.
Perhaps some mothers are circumcising their sons for exactly the same
reason.
Lindy said: "plus i think it looks gross but thats just me."

But then why would Lindy circumcise her son, if she thinks it's just her?
She's really given no other reason for circumcising except cosmetic appeal.
Why should it be a concern for her? Once her son's an adult and capaple of
washing himself, Lindy is never going to have to look at his penis.
So perhaps she really believes she's doing his future partner a sevice, it
certainly sounds like it to me. If so, she's doing it for exactly the same
reason many parents in some cultures have their girls circumcised.
I'm not saying female and male circumcision are the same, but I can
certainly see the parallels.
--
Amy,
Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02,
& Ana born screaming 30/06/04
email: barton . souto @ clear . net . nz (join the dots!)
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/c/carlos2002/
Nan
2004-11-23 20:49:15 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:09:29 +1300, "Mum of Two"
Post by Mum of Two
Post by emilymr
"Male circumcision done on infants as a matter of routine is not the same
as
female circumcisions done on pre-teen girls to make them "marriageable". But
neither is it inconsequential. I think sometimes when we say "But it's not
like what is done to women!" we forget that what is done to baby boys isn't
particularly glorious either."
Yes, I agree. I think my main objection to the comparison between male
and female circumcision is that female circ. *is* done to make the
'marriageable' -- ie not enjoy sex -- and is part of a very hostile
environment toward women.
Perhaps some mothers are circumcising their sons for exactly the same
reason.
Lindy said: "plus i think it looks gross but thats just me."
But then why would Lindy circumcise her son, if she thinks it's just her?
Well, aside from the fact that she doesn't need to justify her
decision to you or anyone else, you don't *really* believe that she
thinks she's the only one who thinks that way??? You're just using the
statement to argue your agenda, which you prove below.
Post by Mum of Two
She's really given no other reason for circumcising except cosmetic appeal.
Why should it be a concern for her? Once her son's an adult and capaple of
washing himself, Lindy is never going to have to look at his penis.
So perhaps she really believes she's doing his future partner a sevice, it
certainly sounds like it to me. If so, she's doing it for exactly the same
reason many parents in some cultures have their girls circumcised.
I'm not saying female and male circumcision are the same, but I can
certainly see the parallels.
This is the kind of crap that ticks me off when these threads get
started. Time to deep-six it.

Nan
Todd Gastaldo
2004-11-23 21:07:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nan
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:09:29 +1300, "Mum of Two"
Post by Mum of Two
Post by emilymr
"Male circumcision done on infants as a matter of routine is not the same
as
female circumcisions done on pre-teen girls to make them "marriageable". But
neither is it inconsequential. I think sometimes when we say "But it's not
like what is done to women!" we forget that what is done to baby boys isn't
particularly glorious either."
Yes, I agree. I think my main objection to the comparison between male
and female circumcision is that female circ. *is* done to make the
'marriageable' -- ie not enjoy sex -- and is part of a very hostile
environment toward women.
Perhaps some mothers are circumcising their sons for exactly the same
reason.
Lindy said: "plus i think it looks gross but thats just me."
But then why would Lindy circumcise her son, if she thinks it's just her?
Well, aside from the fact that she doesn't need to justify her
decision to you or anyone else, you don't *really* believe that she
thinks she's the only one who thinks that way??? You're just using the
statement to argue your agenda, which you prove below.
Post by Mum of Two
She's really given no other reason for circumcising except cosmetic appeal.
Why should it be a concern for her? Once her son's an adult and capaple of
washing himself, Lindy is never going to have to look at his penis.
So perhaps she really believes she's doing his future partner a sevice, it
certainly sounds like it to me. If so, she's doing it for exactly the same
reason many parents in some cultures have their girls circumcised.
I'm not saying female and male circumcision are the same, but I can
certainly see the parallels.
This is the kind of crap that ticks me off when these threads get
started. Time to deep-six it.
Yeah, discussing male infants screaming, writhing and bleeding - and
sometimes dying or losing their penises - is a drag.

New thread: Nan is "ticked." Let us soothe her - prevent her pain - maybe
tell her about her delete key....

Hey - how about a bad joke?

Two babies sitting in a crib. The girl baby starts yelling "Rape! Rape!"
The male baby says: "Silly, you're sitting on your pacifier."

Todd
Chotii
2004-11-23 21:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nan
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:09:29 +1300, "Mum of Two"
Post by Mum of Two
Post by emilymr
"Male circumcision done on infants as a matter of routine is not the same
as
female circumcisions done on pre-teen girls to make them "marriageable". But
neither is it inconsequential. I think sometimes when we say "But it's not
like what is done to women!" we forget that what is done to baby boys isn't
particularly glorious either."
Yes, I agree. I think my main objection to the comparison between male
and female circumcision is that female circ. *is* done to make the
'marriageable' -- ie not enjoy sex -- and is part of a very hostile
environment toward women.
Perhaps some mothers are circumcising their sons for exactly the same
reason.
Lindy said: "plus i think it looks gross but thats just me."
But then why would Lindy circumcise her son, if she thinks it's just her?
Well, aside from the fact that she doesn't need to justify her
decision to you or anyone else,
...not true. There may come a day when she will have to justify her
decision.....to her son. Because he will have to live with it, and she will
not. Now, perhaps he will be like most men, and either not care, or not
even be aware. Or even consider the visual effect a true benefit - many men
do. But then again, maybe he won't be happy. And then yes....yes. She will
have to justify why she made such a choice regarding *his* body....to him.

--angela
Chotii
2004-11-23 22:04:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nan
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:09:29 +1300, "Mum of Two"
Post by Mum of Two
Post by emilymr
"Male circumcision done on infants as a matter of routine is not the same
as
female circumcisions done on pre-teen girls to make them "marriageable". But
neither is it inconsequential. I think sometimes when we say "But it's not
like what is done to women!" we forget that what is done to baby boys isn't
particularly glorious either."
Yes, I agree. I think my main objection to the comparison between male
and female circumcision is that female circ. *is* done to make the
'marriageable' -- ie not enjoy sex -- and is part of a very hostile
environment toward women.
Perhaps some mothers are circumcising their sons for exactly the same
reason.
Lindy said: "plus i think it looks gross but thats just me."
But then why would Lindy circumcise her son, if she thinks it's just her?
Well, aside from the fact that she doesn't need to justify her
decision to you or anyone else, you don't *really* believe that she
thinks she's the only one who thinks that way??? You're just using the
statement to argue your agenda, which you prove below.
Of course, some of us have an anti-circumcising agenda. Some of us here also
have an anti cry-it-out agenda and will recommend against CIO very firmly.
Why? Because we know that leaving babies to 'cry it out' causes permanent
changes to their brains. And so, by the way, does the removal of a largish
piece of highly-enervated tissue. The brain must re-wire to adapt for the
severed nerves. We also know, by the way, that infant nerve tissue heals
differently from adult nerve tissue, so we can't *really* claim that the
experience of an adult cut later in life is equal to the experience of one
who was cut in infancy.

Let me make a parallel: for many many years, we didn't know that leaving
babies to cry had any effect on them at all. But now we do know. And I
think research will tell us - eventually - that acute physical traumas such
as that associated with infant circumcision also change the infant brain.
Then the question becomes "At what point does the child's right not to be
traumatised, with associated lifelong changes to his brain, outweigh
societal norms and parental preferences?" The whole CIO thing is changing,
even now. Because people are learning that it's harmful.

I personally see no difference in promoting one "do not harm the child"
agenda versus promoting a different one. Or perhaps we ought all to just
shut up and not say anything to parents who want to leave their children to
cry it out, as they don't have to justify it to anyone? Is there no role
for educating people, in our 'mind our own business' society?

--angela
Tori M.
2004-11-23 22:29:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chotii
I personally see no difference in promoting one "do not harm the child"
agenda versus promoting a different one. Or perhaps we ought all to just
shut up and not say anything to parents who want to leave their children
to cry it out, as they don't have to justify it to anyone? Is there no
role for educating people, in our 'mind our own business' society?
--angela
The problem with pushing an agenda is that you dont take into account
differant personalities of children. When I had Bonnie I swore I would not
do CIO. At 6 months every night our routine was something like this.

8 pm Bonnie was pre cranky last bottle for the night and we brought her into
a quiet room that was dark and we rocked her gently sitting on the side of
the bed.
8:30 Bonnie was screaming so we started walking arround the room bouncing
her
9 Crying harder time for parent swap because parent #1 was on the edge of a
meltdown
9:30 Try a bit more bottle and then follow up with Gas Drops and tylenol
just in case the crying is pain related.
9:45 crying slows down a bit so whatever parent on duty starts to relax a
bit and rocks/bounces/cuddles a bit more
10:00 By now She was NORMALY asleep but there was always the risk that once
you put her down she would wake up.

Ok CIO time.. We ONLY did CIO for bed time never for nighttime feedings
since she always seemed to drink a full bottle at night.

Night 1
8pm Final Bottle
8:15 Bonnie was crying Mom + Dad both not knowing what to do
8:30 Bonnie was sleeping

Things did not go this smoothly everynight but 90% of the time it did. Oh
and the crying pattern was EVERY NIGHT pre CIO.. we changed a few things
every now and then to see if it would help but nope.. Bonnie Cried 2hours+
almost everynight from 6 weeks-6 months. After that she cried no more then
45 minutes. So while no I dont have to justify myself to you or to anyone I
do on this topic. I dont believe in ignoring a childs needs but if the
child is not being calmed by anything you do what do you do? As I told my
husband if you know they dont need a new diaper/bottle(breast)and there is
no sign of pain sometimes there is nothing you can do and all you can do is
comfort yourself. If that means rocking them for hours on end the so be
it.. my nerves could never take it.

Tori
--
Bonnie 3/20/02
Xavier 10/27/04
Mum of Two
2004-11-24 03:14:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nan
Well, aside from the fact that she doesn't need to justify her
decision to you or anyone else, you don't *really* believe that she
thinks she's the only one who thinks that way??? You're just using the
statement to argue your agenda, which you prove below.
If it were her own body, she wouldn't have to justify it. But it isn't.
Yes I am using Lindy's statement, which she voiced for me to use. I do feel
for Lindy, because it seems she was mislead about the degree of discomfort
her baby suffered, and she is now facing the horror of the realisation that
she was lied to and cannot undo what she's done. I don't blame her for that,
anymore than I blame MIL for what was done to DH.
What ticks *me* off, is she's now spreading that misinformation to encourage
others to hurt their children, probably because it makes her feel better
about what happened to her son. Her feelings are valid too, but I don't
think they're worth harming other people's children for, no.
--
Amy,
Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02,
& Ana born screaming 30/06/04
email: barton . souto @ clear . net . nz (join the dots!)
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/c/carlos2002/
Leanne
2004-11-24 05:33:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nan
Well, aside from the fact that she doesn't need to justify her
decision to you or anyone else, you don't *really* believe that she
thinks she's the only one who thinks that way??? You're just using the
statement to argue your agenda, which you prove below.
This is the kind of crap that ticks me off when these threads get
started. Time to deep-six it.
While I usually respect you and your opinion, this is a subject that I'm
going to have to disagree with you on.

Lindy's information is misguided. While this is not really her fault, she
does have access to a huge amount of correct information.

She also defends her reasons for "it looks gross". (I think Amy explanation
of it all sounds about right) As I have a son, I can honestly say that there
is nothing on his body that i find "gross" and even if i did, i certainly
wouldn't go chopping it off!

The arguments that have been given are just plain stupid. Since I worked at
a hospital before i got pregnant and during, up to my 8 month, I've seen a
few circumcisions... and they DO hurt the baby, they DO rip the skin before
its cut and they ARE tied to a board... now if this doesnt seem inhumane to
anyone... well i guess that says it all.
--
Leanne
--------------------------------
Before you were conceived I wanted you,
Before you were born I loved you,
Before you were here an hour I would die for you,
This is the miracle of life.

http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/lstacherski/album?.dir=/1b24&.src=ph&.tok=ph_0BGCBvVMFF54J
Lindy
2004-11-24 04:47:20 UTC
Permalink
i just want you all to know until now, i enjoyed this group and visited
almost every day since my pregnancy. but i think you have gone to far
and im done here. to say im trying to harm peoples children because of
circumcision is stupid and very mean. pretty much every man i know is
circumcised and they have never once said that it bothered them but
rather preferred it. and during the procedure the doctor numbs the penis
so id doesnt hurt and even if it hurts afterwards as long as the parents
are taking care of it like they are supposed to, it will heal and the
baby wont even know any difference. everyone has the right to choose
whether or not to do this to there child and i think it is wrong to
think of a parent to be bad if they choose yes, plus i think my child
will thank me later.
the whole stinging pee thing, we took our baby to the doctor for a check
up and told him that a while before we came that our baby had peed while
a diaper change and it got in his eye. the doctor said, dont worry it
doesnt hurt because of the babys pee being sterile. thats what he told
me, so i would assume that during urination it wouldn't hurt. plus our
baby never cried when he peed. ask anyone here that has a circumcised
boy if there baby screams out in pain while they pee. im sure they will
say no. for the people that are saying its burning them and they are in
pain, YOU are giving out wrong info.
im gone from this group but thanks to the few that agreed with me.i hope
the rest of you are happy that you have to rip on others opinions and
cause something like this.

http://community.webtv.net/lindo_84/LindysPictures
http://community.webtv.net/lindo_84/NoahsBabyPage
Leanne
2004-11-24 06:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lindy
i just want you all to know until now, i enjoyed this group and visited
almost every day since my pregnancy. but i think you have gone to far
and im done here.
Sorry to hear this... everyone gets in mad debates about this and other
things... but this is usenet... you'll have to grow thicker skin.
Post by Lindy
and during the procedure the doctor numbs the penis
so id doesnt hurt and even if it hurts afterwards as long as the parents
are taking care of it like they are supposed to, it will heal and the
baby wont even know any difference.
other things can happen to the penis while being circumcised, people arent
just talking about the pain.
Post by Lindy
everyone has the right to choose
whether or not to do this to there child and i think it is wrong to
think of a parent to be bad if they choose yes, plus i think my child
will thank me later.
you can't make the assumption that your child will thank you later, nor can
I make the assumption that he wont.. so i'll leave that there
Post by Lindy
the whole stinging pee thing, we took our baby to the doctor for a check
up and told him that a while before we came that our baby had peed while
a diaper change and it got in his eye. the doctor said, dont worry it
doesnt hurt because of the babys pee being sterile.
he probably said that it wont hurt him (not as in pain hurt) because the
urine is sterile...

I know for a fact the urine stings like all hell from a little TINY cut when
i gave birth (i didnt tear enough to even see it)
Post by Lindy
for the people that are saying its burning them and they are in
pain, YOU are giving out wrong info.
argh
Post by Lindy
im gone from this group but thanks to the few that agreed with me.i hope
the rest of you are happy that you have to rip on others opinions and
cause something like this.
Once again, sorry to hear this, but like i said, this is usenet...
--
Leanne
--------------------------------
Before you were conceived I wanted you,
Before you were born I loved you,
Before you were here an hour I would die for you,
This is the miracle of life.

http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/lstacherski/album?.dir=/1b24&.src=ph&.tok=ph_0BGCBvVMFF54J
s***@iloveagoodbook.com
2004-11-24 09:31:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lindy
i just want you all to know until now, i enjoyed this group and visited
almost every day since my pregnancy. but i think you have gone to far
and im done here. to say im trying to harm peoples children because of
circumcision is stupid and very mean. pretty much every man i know is
circumcised and they have never once said that it bothered them but
rather preferred it.
Ohhhh, so these men all remember when they were intact newborns and
can thus seriously claim that they prefer their their circ'ed penises
to their once intact penises. That's amazing! So cool. I don't know
anyone who can remember being a newborn, your male friends must be
really special to "prefer" their circ'ed penises.

and during the procedure the doctor numbs the penis
Post by Lindy
so id doesnt hurt and even if it hurts afterwards as long as the parents
are taking care of it like they are supposed to, it will heal and the
baby wont even know any difference.
But you just said that all the circ'ed men you know prefer their
circ'ed penises to their intact penises? How can this be when you are
now saying that the babies "won't even know any difference". How do
your male friends know the difference then?

everyone has the right to choose
Post by Lindy
whether or not to do this to there child and i think it is wrong to
think of a parent to be bad if they choose yes, plus i think my child
will thank me later.
the whole stinging pee thing, we took our baby to the doctor for a check
up and told him that a while before we came that our baby had peed while
a diaper change and it got in his eye. the doctor said, dont worry it
doesnt hurt because of the babys pee being sterile. thats what he told
me, so i would assume that during urination it wouldn't hurt. plus our
baby never cried when he peed. ask anyone here that has a circumcised
boy if there baby screams out in pain while they pee. im sure they will
say no. for the people that are saying its burning them and they are in
pain, YOU are giving out wrong info.
im gone from this group but thanks to the few that agreed with me.i hope
the rest of you are happy that you have to rip on others opinions and
cause something like this.
It's not ripping on an opinion, it's attempting to stop ignorant
misinformation.

Stephie.
Daye
2004-11-22 04:48:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by melis
Hi, we are expecting in less that 4 weeks and we choose not to know the sex
of our future baby, But If it is a boy - should we have him Circumcised?
I have not been told of any real advantages of having it done and right now
we are swayed towards not doing it, any thoughts??
I would say not to do it unless you have religious reasons to do so.
I have an un-circ'ed 10 month old boy. The reason is because I read
what the procedure actually is. I then related those details to my
circ'ed DH. He flinched when I told him. If he flinched, I can only
imagine what the baby was going to do. So we decided there was no
good reason to do it. (The only reason we thought to maybe have it
done is that DH's grandfather is a full blood Jew. We are not
religiously Jewish.)

A decent page to get idea of what is actually involved in the
procedure is: http://www.cirp.org/ (in particular, look at
http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/). Once you read what is
involved, then you can make your decision.

--
Daye
Irrational Number
2004-11-22 05:22:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by melis
Hi, we are expecting in less that 4 weeks and we choose not to know the sex
of our future baby, But If it is a boy - should we have him Circumcised?
I have not been told of any real advantages of having it done and right now
we are swayed towards not doing it, any thoughts??
Having the foreskin removed for "medical" reasons
makes as much sense as removing the tonsils and
appendixes because they may have problems.

-- Anita --
Christi :-\)
2004-11-22 05:41:53 UTC
Permalink
Both of my sons are done and all 3 of my nephews are done also. I
believe the percentage of ones that have done it are far more than 5%.
All my friends have had their sons done also. My husband and his 3
brothers were not done as babies and they wish they were. My brother in
law and my husband were both in the militery and going out to the field
without showers is hard and it's very hard if you are not circumsized.
You stay cleaner without that skin all around. Just my opinion! :-)

~ Those privileged to touch the lives of children and youth should
constantly be aware that their impact on a single child may affect a
multitude of others a thousand years from now......anonymous ~
Lorenzo
2004-11-22 14:40:16 UTC
Permalink
I guess most of you are in the States.

In the UK we would not even think to cirumcise as a matter of course. I
don't think we are any worse off as a result. It seems a pretty barbaric
thing to do unless there is a reason.

Think for a minute about how perfect a little baby is. Tiny, perfectly
formed fingers and toes. Little finger nails, eye lashes etc.

Now ask yourself, why has nature decided to give a boy a foreskin? It is a
mistake? Or is it there for a reason?
Post by melis
Hi, we are expecting in less that 4 weeks and we choose not to know the
sex of our future baby, But If it is a boy - should we have him
Circumcised?
I have not been told of any real advantages of having it done and right
now we are swayed towards not doing it, any thoughts??
thanks,
Mel
http://home.mindspring.com/~melis63/babyannouncement/
Daye
2004-11-22 20:00:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lorenzo
In the UK we would not even think to cirumcise as a matter of course. I
don't think we are any worse off as a result.
Here in Melbourne, Australia, there is only one doctor who I know that
will perform the procedure. If there is a medical reason, there are
plenty of doctors who will do it.

--
Daye
s***@iloveagoodbook.com
2004-11-23 07:21:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lorenzo
I guess most of you are in the States.
In the UK we would not even think to cirumcise as a matter of course. I
don't think we are any worse off as a result. It seems a pretty barbaric
thing to do unless there is a reason.
Think for a minute about how perfect a little baby is. Tiny, perfectly
formed fingers and toes. Little finger nails, eye lashes etc.
I agree.

We are pregnant for 9 months or so, 40 weeks. We ask the universe/
goddess/god for a healthy baby. And then, to show how grateful we are,
we chop a piece of his perfect body off, because it's"yukky".

Makes no sense to me.

Stephie
Leslie
2004-11-22 18:18:29 UTC
Permalink
Don't do it. I let my husband talk me into doing it with my first two sons and
I regret it terribly. :-( Our third son is not done, nor will any others be.
To me, it is "willful mutilation of a healthy body part," and is just wrong
since there is no reason for it.


Leslie

Emily (2/4/91)
Jake (1/27/94)
Teddy (2/15/95)
William (3/5/01 -- VBA3C, 13 lbs. 5 oz.)
Lorelei (11/10/04 -- another VBAC)

"Children come trailing clouds of glory from God, which is their home."
~ William Wordsworth
Circe
2004-11-22 18:28:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leslie
Don't do it. I let my husband talk me into doing it with my first
two sons and I regret it terribly. :-( Our third son is not done,
nor will any others be. To me, it is "willful mutilation of a
healthy body part," and is just wrong since there is no reason for
it.
Yeah, that's pretty much where I am, except that my husband came around to
my POV after the first one was done and, of course, I've only got two boys.
I expect someday, I'll have to explain to the boys why their parts are
"different" from one another, but I'd much rather do that than make the same
mistake twice!
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 5), and the Rising Son (Julian, 7)

Tolerance, equality, and personal liberty *are* moral values!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman
Todd Gastaldo
2004-11-22 20:50:58 UTC
Permalink
INFANT PENIS CARE

SURGEON GENERAL CIRC FRAUD (KOOP)

See below...
Post by Circe
Post by Leslie
Don't do it. I let my husband talk me into doing it with my first
two sons and I regret it terribly. :-( Our third son is not done,
nor will any others be. To me, it is "willful mutilation of a
healthy body part," and is just wrong since there is no reason for
it.
Yeah, that's pretty much where I am, except that my husband came around to
my POV after the first one was done and, of course, I've only got two boys.
I expect someday, I'll have to explain to the boys why their parts are
"different" from one another, but I'd much rather do that than make the same
mistake twice!
--
BRAVO TO LESLIE AND CIRCE!


SURGEON GENERAL CIRC FRAUD (KOOP)

No less an authority than U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, M.D
"marketed" partial penile amputations after it was admitted that there
were never any medical indications.

In the pages of the Saturday Evening
Post, US Surgeon General Koop encouraged parents to ask for circumcision by
telling them that
"psychological problems...do occur in families with two little boys, one
of whom is circumcised and one of whom is not." [U.S. Surgeon General C.
Everrett Koop. Letter. Jul/Aug 1982 Saturday Evening Post]

But Koop closed his 1982 letter to the Saturday Evening Post with an
indirect
contradiction of his own argument.

He wrote, "All of the Western world
except the United States raises its children uncircumcised and it seems
logical that...such a practice must be safe."

Obviously, since no
psychological problems (in families with "two little boys, one of whom is
circumcised and one of whom is not") were reported when the British
circumcision rate plummeted following WWII, it must indeed be safe to
abruptly stop circumcising.

In regard to the British, Desmond Morris, author of The Naked Ape,
recently asked rhetorically why the mutilation called circumcision is not
prosecuted as child abuse.

Morris noted that all of the reasons given to
do circumcisions are "nonsense," and added that the British circumcision
rate plummeted to 0.41% soon after physicians stopped getting paid to do
circumcisions. [Morris D. Babywatching. New York: Crown 1992])

INFANT PENIS CARE

The British NHS stopped covering it after Gairdner demonstrated that
"retracting" the foreskin can cause the need for circumcision.

Oster later did a longitudinal study 1,969 boys - and reported that
sometimes the foreskin doesn't fully retract until age 17.

Oster found that a few of the 1,969 boys did need circumcisions - but he
thought that HE might have caused the need because of his GENTLE foreskin
retraction testing...

Standard medical care of the INTACT infant penis used to be the grisly
"freeing adhesions" first step in circumcision, as in,

"...freeing adhesions, is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment and is
unfounded physiologically and
medically." [Kaplan GW: Circumcision: An overview. Current Problems in
Pediatrics, 1977;7(5):8.]

That is, MDs used to rip the natural bond between foreskin and glans and
CAUSE adhesions - and the need for circumcision...

MDs were treating "phimosis" and causing GENUINE phimosis...

According to British consultant pediatrician NRC Roberton, M.D.:

"All newborn males have 'phimosis'; the foreskin is not meant to be
retractile at this age, and the parents must be told to leave it alone
and not try and retract it. Forcible retraction in infancy tears the
tissues of the tip of the foreskin, causing scarring, and is the
commonest cause of genuine phimosis later in life." [Roberton NRC. Care
of the normal term newborn baby. In Roberton NRC (ed). Textbook of
neonatology. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2nd ed., 1992. Roberton
is Consultant Paediatrician, Addenbrook's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.]

Wow - I *really* liked Leslie's and Barbara's posts!

Thanks!

Todd
Shelley
2004-11-22 20:22:27 UTC
Permalink
I would just like to add my 2 cents worth as a woman whose husband and
son are both not done. There is a lot of myths that not being done is
less clean and prone to infections and I can say that DH has never had
an infection and he is always very clean. As for it looking "gross"
it's all about what you are used to I guess. As it's becomming more
and more common not to have this done, the boys partners probably
won't think twice about it. I know I don't think it looks "gross".

So my opintion is, you and your husband need to do what you think is
best for your son based on the facts you have gathered.

Good luck,
Shelley
mom to Jacob (2.75)
edd mar 30/05
Post by melis
Hi, we are expecting in less that 4 weeks and we choose not to know the sex
of our future baby, But If it is a boy - should we have him Circumcised?
I have not been told of any real advantages of having it done and right now
we are swayed towards not doing it, any thoughts??
thanks,
Mel
http://home.mindspring.com/~melis63/babyannouncement/
Kaybee
2004-11-23 04:32:54 UTC
Permalink
I would tell you to do it. But you need to talk it over with your hubby.
It is a decision that you guys need to make. Also check with your insurance
company if they cover it. We are having a boy and getting him circumcised
but we are going to have to pay for it.

Good luck in your decision.

Kay
Eva 9/2002
little boy 1/2005
Post by melis
Hi, we are expecting in less that 4 weeks and we choose not to know the sex
of our future baby, But If it is a boy - should we have him Circumcised?
I have not been told of any real advantages of having it done and right now
we are swayed towards not doing it, any thoughts??
thanks,
Mel
http://home.mindspring.com/~melis63/babyannouncement/
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...